[WIP] Historical Guns Specs [Archive] - Page 3

gap

02-21-13, 09:29 AM

Another request :)
Please make a mission with multiple of aircrafts.. maybe 7-8, maybe 10 :o.. different.. and VIIC/41..
Want to try to change the course of history.. :D

Oh my God, Volodya went crazy!!!

EDIT: although my ancestors may be offended.. they are at rest near Berlin and Prague.. :( :hmm2:

...if only they could see you now... :-?

Okay, I will help you with that mission, but my next task will be making Italian warships undestructible, for the greater honor of my loved country :O:

I managed to get the starshells working for the U-boat deck gun, but, because I changed the AA round on the U-boat deck gun to Starshells since SS are not slectable on the deckgun screen, and after that, Al AA guns in the game started shooting starshells...:/\\!!

Is it possible to set the specific ammo type to be used on each AA gun?

So, your deckgunners are giving the priority to AA shells, which you changed for starshells... :hmmm:

Does it happen when you issue a deckgun order, or a flak gun order? Are they aiming at planes or at ships?

Great movie.. BTW..

EDIT: Russian movie.. but.. World Heritage

I never actually watched it, but I wish I had :oops:

By the way: in italy it became an icon of intellectualistic and overally abstruse cinematography, after being caricatured in these therms in a popular '76 Italian comedy film. :O:

tolerance? maybe.. what units is it measured? degrees or..?
because for flaks trav/elev tolerance - 15.. for deck gun only 0,75.. :06:

:hmmm:

yes, in degrees. It could be one of the following things:

- fire restriction cone (the lower this setting, the better gun's aiming under any condition and the longer the gunner will wait for an accurate aiming before firing)

- gyroscopic stabilization: the maximum pitch/roll angle which can be corrected (the higher this setting, the better gun's aiming in rough weather)

- gyroscopic stabilization: the maximum angle the gun is allowed to pitch/roll (the lower this setting, the better gun's aiming in rough weather)

volodya61

02-21-13, 10:07 AM

Oh my God, Volodya went crazy!!!

Yep.. :yep:
My gunners are able now to shoot down a Hurricane in 8-10 shots using 37mm C30, the slowest Flak in the game.. :haha:
I only need now several missions for deck gun to adjust it a bit..
And we could to release a first beta version for test it via the community.. :yep:

..but my next task will be making Italian warships undestructible, for the greater honor of my loved country :O:

:rotfl2:

yes, in degrees. It could be one of the following things:

But why the twentyfold difference? flaks - 15 and deck guns - 0.75.. :06:

Okay.. I will finish with the guns and will take this close..

gap

02-21-13, 10:44 AM

Yep.. :yep:
My gunners are able now to shoot down a Hurricane in 8-10 shots using 37mm C30, the slowest Flak in the game.. :haha:

and I suppose this is happening in campaign, with low gunner's experience points :dead:

I only need now several missions for deck gun to adjust it a bit..
And we could to release a first beta version for test it via the community.. :yep:

I agree :up:

Just wait for me to finish my work on the next DynEnv version. I am currently writing the release notes which I will send to stoianm for his approval :03:

But why the twentyfold difference? flaks - 15 and deck guns - 0.75.. :06:

for a bunch of interrelated reasons: deckguns are heavier, they got a lower train/elevation rate, they don't need (and aren't expected) to be as accurate as a Flak guns, etc. Their current tolerance factor could be meant to simulate these facts, or simply to counterbalancing other gun settings

Okay.. I will finish with the guns and will take this close..

This is actually part of our work on U-boat guns. We should at least try to understand how this parameter is used in game before releasing a patch :)

volodya61

02-21-13, 11:12 AM

and I suppose this is happening in campaign, with low gunner's experience points :dead:

Yeah.. :D
But I can always break them back.. :haha:

This is actually part of our work on U-boat guns. We should at least try to understand how this parameter is used in game before releasing a patch :)

What patch?

gap

02-21-13, 11:32 AM

What patch?

I tend to call the various parts that will be hopefully part of the final mod, "patches" or "fixes".

In this case I was making reference to the upcoming "U-boat guns patch", or whatever name we will decide to give it :)

volodya61

02-21-13, 12:07 PM

But why the twentyfold difference? flaks - 15 and deck guns - 0.75.. :06:

Forgot to say - Vierling tolerance factors/angles are 5/3..

In this case I was making reference to the upcoming "U-boat guns patch", or whatever name we will decide to give it :)

Deep Rework U-boat Guns by DreamTeam :rotfl2:

I think to first beta test/release first part (which I've almost finished) would be enough.. although.. decide by yourself :yep:

Targor Avelany

02-21-13, 12:12 PM

Forgot to say - Vierling tolerance factors/angles are 5/3..

Deep Rework U-boat Guns by DreamTeam :rotfl2:

I think to first beta test/release first part (which I've almost finished) would be enough.. although.. decide by yourself :yep:

I think it is a very good name.. For both, name and the team! :arrgh!: :subsim: :har:

gap

02-21-13, 12:50 PM

Forgot to say - Vierling tolerance factors/angles are 5/3..

yep, if we got to learn from stock settings (unfortunately doing it is not always commendable :-?), we should conclude that the bigger the gun, the lower the tolerance settings.

Supposing that devs wanted to make bigger guns lesser stabilized, this observation would be in accordance with my interpretation of tolerance factors as:

gyroscopic stabilization: the maximum pitch/roll angle which can be corrected

On the other hand, talking about the Flakvierling, navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_20mm-65_c30.htm) states that:

A three-dimensional stabilized naval-mount was introduced in 1944.

Maybe devs were aware of it, and wanted to simulate a stabilizied gun. In this case, my other interpreation of the same setting would be more appropriate:

gyroscopic stabilization: the maximum angle the gun is allowed to pitch/roll

This would be also in accordance with the fact that ship-mounted guns, whose tolerance factors are without exceptions set to 1, are very accurate even in heavy seas. :hmmm:

P.S: did you get my spreadsheet resuming stock gun settings? :03:

Deep Rework U-boat Guns by DreamTeam :rotfl2:

I think to first beta test/release first part (which I've almost finished) would be enough.. although.. decide by yourself :yep:

I think it is a very good name.. For both, name and the team! :arrgh!: :subsim: :har:

I don't want to look too serious, but a name like "volodya61 & gap - Reworked U-boat Guns v 0.x", seems more appropriate to me :03:

Whatever name we pick for it, let's finish it! :D

volodya61

02-21-13, 04:46 PM

I don't want to look too serious, but a name like "volodya61 & gap - Reworked U-boat Guns v 0.x", seems more appropriate to me :03:

I don't like it.. :O:
authors' names at the first place? :shifty:

I've set only HE shells for 20mm Flaks (AP=0) as you mentioned earlier..
now the problem is - gunners are too slowly switching from AP to HE because AP at the first place as default and they don't have enough time before the aircraft's first approach..
the question is - how can I remove AP shells from the .sim file at all? I can't do it using Goblin.. new tool which you sent me didn't open weapon's controller in the .sim..
GR2 editor?
or is this not possible?

EDIT: or at least how to swap AP and HE?

gap

02-21-13, 06:17 PM

I don't like it.. :O:
authors' names at the first place? :shifty:

Nevermind, I don't really care the name at this stage. whatever you like :)

I've set only HE shells for 20mm Flaks (AP=0) as you mentioned earlier..
now the problem is - gunners are too slowly switching from AP to HE because AP at the first place as default and they don't have enough time before the aircraft's first approach..
the question is - how can I remove AP shells from the .sim file at all? I can't do it using Goblin.. new tool which you sent me didn't open weapon's controller in the .sim..
GR2 editor?
or is this not possible?

EDIT: or at least how to swap AP and HE?

Read this post, please:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2012705&postcount=482

You can swap AP/HE shells positions without problems. Or better, you can set the AP shells designation to 'none'. In this way the game woud know that the gun has not AP shells assigned, and would use HE shells as default ordnance... or at least I think so :03:

volodya61

02-21-13, 06:37 PM

Or better, you can set the AP shells designation to 'none'. In this way the game woud know that the gun has not AP shells assigned, and would use HE shells as default ordnance... or at least I think so :03:

No.. it's not working.. I tried that before.. when I next time opened the file designation is again 'unknown'.. will try other way..

EDIT: I'm a blind mouse.. I've tried that without merged shells.dat and.sim.. now I'll try it with shells files..

gap

02-21-13, 07:12 PM

EDIT: I'm a blind mouse.. I've tried that without merged shells.dat and.sim.. now I'll try it with shells files..

let me know if you don't manage doing it before this week-end :D :O:

volodya61

02-21-13, 08:04 PM

Okay..

method with designation 'none' - not working
because AP still remains the default..

method with assign ammo type - working.. but..
it's virtual method.. on the game screen I still see AP on the first 'default' place.. I know that there are HE shells, not AP.. but.. uncomfortable..

is there a way to swap rows in the .sim.. AP and HE..?

http://s19.postimage.org/nen9w0b2b/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

EDIT: it may be controlled by Page...py, though :hmmm:

EDIT2: forget it all.. I was bored.. :rotfl2:

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 08:55 PM

is there a way to swap rows in the .sim.. AP and HE..?

http://s19.postimage.org/nen9w0b2b/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Good question. I would bet that changing their order via hex editor would do it :up:

gap

02-21-13, 08:55 PM

Okay..

method with designation 'none' - not working
because AP still remains the default..

Really? I was 99% sure that it would have worked. I wonder why this damn 1% is always popping up when it is about SH5 :dead: :O:

method with assign ammo type - working.. but..
it's virtual method.. on the game screen I still see AP on the first 'default' place.. I know that there are HE shells, not AP.. but.. uncomfortable..

I know what you mean: I feel the same...

is there a way to swap rows in the .sim.. AP and HE..?

unfortunately not, as far as I know :-?

EDIT: it may be controlled by Page...py, though :hmmm:

I have no idea. Maybe we can give Flaks a small amount of AP shells (around 25%): according to Admiraly's Interrogation of U-Boat Survivors - Cumulative Edition (June 1944):

The 20 mm. and 37 mm. ammunition only differ from each other in calibre and range. Up to August 1943 tracer plugs were fitted to H.E. Some H.E./A.P. are now fitted with tracer (B3). It is claimed that all tracer ammunition will in future be tracer/incendiary. A new type of 37 mm. phosphorous incendiary ammunition and the introduction of 20 mm. incendiary is also reported.

The statement seems to imply that, after all, A.P. shells were used :yep:

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 08:57 PM

To set no shell type in goblin leave the entry blank

gap

02-21-13, 08:58 PM

Good question. I would bet that changing their order via hex editor would do it :up:

Hehe, I knew you had to pop up with one of your unhortodox methods ;)

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 09:00 PM

Hehe, I knew you had to pop up with one of your unhortodox methods ;)

Not unorthodox at all. Study the .sim file in hex editor for it and you'll see that the shells are listed in order - just like they are seen in Goblin. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not.

gap

02-21-13, 09:15 PM

Not unorthodox at all. Study the .sim file in hex editor for it and you'll see that the shells are listed in order - just like they are seen in Goblin. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not.

give the "unorthodox" therm its best meaning. :O:
I will try messing with gun's sim files in Hex editor, but I can't promise that I will get through it. :88)

gap

02-21-13, 09:54 PM

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2484/hexsim.jpg

:doh:

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 09:58 PM

which file and which item are you trying to change the shell layout on?

gap

02-21-13, 10:09 PM

which file and which item are you trying to change the shell layout on?

I ignore which file Volodya is currently working on. What we are trying to achieve is switching the default ordnance from AP to HE shells.

Personally I think that the easier way to do it would be switching AP and HE settings in Goblin, and then changing addresses 533, 534, 55B and 55C respectively to 48, 45, 41 and 50. This is relative to the file I have used as example (20mm_C30.sim).

I am not sure that after this tweak Goblin Editor would be still able to read correctly the controller, so this one should be the last change. What do you think? :hmm2:

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 10:10 PM

nevermind. Just picked the first one and shuffled the shells around in the .sim file. Result: no change. Looks to be hard coded to AP, HE, AA, then SS. It was worth a try :D

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 10:11 PM

I ignore which file Volodya is currently working on. What we are trying to achieve is switching the default ordnance from AP to HE shells.

Personally I think that the easier way to do it would be switching AP and HE settings in Goblin, and then changing addresses 533, 534, 55B and 55C respectively to 48, 45, 41 and 50. This is relative to the file I have used as example (20mm_C30.sim).

I am not sure that after this tweak Goblin Editor would be still able to read correctly the controller, so this one should be the last change. What do you think? :hmm2:

Why don't you just set the AP shell type to nothing in goblin and it's amount to 0 so it will ignore the AP shells?

gap

02-21-13, 10:11 PM

nevermind. Just picked the first one and shuffled the shells around in the .sim file. Result: no change. Looks to be hard coded to AP, HE, AA, then SS. It was worth a try :D

Yes, definitely worth :03:

gap

02-21-13, 10:13 PM

Why don't you just set the AP shell type to nothing in goblin and it's amount to 0 so it will ignore the AP shells?

This was my first guess, but unfortunately it didn't work:

method with designation 'none' - not working
because AP still remains the default..

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 10:15 PM

This was my first guess, but unfortunately it didn't work:

Hmm :hmm2: I'll verify that.....give me a few...

gap

02-21-13, 10:15 PM

Hmm :hmm2: I'll verify that.....give me a few...

Okay, take your time :up:

TheDarkWraith

02-21-13, 10:37 PM

Okay, take your time :up:

yep, still defaults to AP. I can find hidden menu items no problem but I've never figured out how to call their events (click, mouse over, etc.). If I can figure this out this it will open up lots of things I've wanted to do along with solving your 'problem'.

gap

02-21-13, 10:43 PM

yep, still defaults to AP. I can find hidden menu items no problem but I've never figured out how to call their events (click, mouse over, etc.). If I can figure this out this it will open up lots of things I've wanted to do along with solving your 'problem'.

More curiosity than a real 'problem' in this case. Let us know if you find anything new on this subject :salute:

Rongel

02-22-13, 02:56 AM

Couple of quick questions concerning cannons and AA guns!

I have noticed that ships start to fire at you with AA guns from about 2 kilometers. But the actual bullets have range of 1,5 km or so, so they dissappear before hitting my boat. Looks kind of weird. There is some cfg file (sim.cfg?) that says from what range they are shooting at you, but is there a way to actually increase the bullets range? Or maybe you are already on it?

The other is that is u-boats deck gun damage must be lowered, I just recently sunk a Cimmeron tanker with 7 shells (not using critical hits or stuff like that). But is that something that is going to be added later?

Anyway can't wait for the first version! :yeah:

V13dweller

02-22-13, 05:03 AM

You can edit the detonation range in the Shells.dat, you can also set the attack distance of the AI AA guns in the SIM.cfg.

gap

02-22-13, 08:26 AM

I have noticed that ships start to fire at you with AA guns from about 2 kilometers. But the actual bullets have range of 1,5 km or so, so they dissappear before hitting my boat. Looks kind of weird. There is some cfg file (sim.cfg?) that says from what range they are shooting at you, but is there a way to actually increase the bullets range? Or maybe you are already on it?

Hi Rongel,

maximum range and its respective elevation angle are set through the wpn_Cannon controller, individually for each gun. This mod will feature realistic values for both of them, but in general stock settings are fairly close to historical guns specs. As it is obvious, the bigger gun's caliber, the longer its range.

As for distance at which AI controlled AA guns will start firing, there are two settings in Sim.cfg file: one for cannons and one for AA guns. If you are using IRAI, they are respectively set to 7,000 and 3,500 m. Unfortunately, these settings are global. This implies that, unless we find another setting affecting guns behaviour (Restr_dist [?] :hmm2:) individually for each of them, we got to find a compromise between big and small caliber guns. :-?

The other is that is u-boats deck gun damage must be lowered, I just recently sunk a Cimmeron tanker with 7 shells (not using critical hits or stuff like that). But is that something that is going to be added later?

Exactly!
at this moment we are sticking to gun's specs. But for sure we will deal with ammo damage and ships armours/hit points :up:

Anyway can't wait for the first version! :yeah:

Me too!

volodya61

02-22-13, 08:55 AM

Wow.. my idle question (specified from nothing) was the catalyst for the debate.. :D

gap

02-22-13, 09:06 AM

Wow.. my idle question (specified from nothing) was the catalyst for the debate.. :D

Yes, you planted the seed, I irrigated it, TDW put in a good dose of fertilizer and then... no plant germinated :doh: :O:

but as said by TDW, it was worth a try :up:

volodya61

02-22-13, 09:58 AM

...no plant germinated :doh: :O:

I don't think that was a 'Problem'.. just a trifle :)
I left it "as is" :yep:

PS: missions?

gap

02-22-13, 12:20 PM

I don't think that was a 'Problem'.. just a trifle :)
I left it "as is" :yep:

I agree. After a second thought, I think that the decison of getting rid of the AP shells at all was a bit too drastic. :up:

PS: missions?

From which one do you want me to start?

volodya61

02-22-13, 12:45 PM

From which one do you want me to start?

I set 'cannon range' in the CrewAI.cfg to 700/2100/3500 (default 1000/3000/5000) so I need mission(s) with single unarmed merchant (all stop or docked) at the range(s) 600/2000/3400..

and later our test mission with VIIC/41 and more different aircrafts (8-10)..

gap

02-22-13, 01:39 PM

I set 'cannon range' in the CrewAI.cfg to 700/2100/3500 (default 1000/3000/5000) so I need mission(s) with single unarmed merchant (all stop or docked) at the range(s) 600/2000/3400..

I will prepare the mission you are requesting but, as with the Flaks, I feel more in line with the stock settings which by the way are in agreement with "my" usual source (Admiralty Records).

By shortening the maximum range setting, you will essentially reduce player's freedom.

I don't pretend the 5 km range to be always effective, but depending on sea state, crew training, profile offered by the enemy target, etc. it should be made a viable though azardous option. In one phrase, I think we should be set free to take this chance, even if it was a mistake :yep:

and later our test mission with VIIC/41 and more different aircrafts (8-10)..

:up:

volodya61

02-22-13, 02:08 PM

I will prepare the mission you are requesting but, as with the Flaks, I feel more in line with the stock settings which by the way are in agreement with "my" usual source (Admiralty Records).

Maybe these settings (1000/3000/5000) are historically accurate, I don't dispute..
But in my opinion these settings are inaccurate for this game..
Seeking to historical accuracy, we should not forget about the comfort of gameplay.. again IMO..

gap

02-22-13, 02:25 PM

Maybe these settings (1000/3000/5000) are historically accurate, I don't dispute..
But in my opinion these settings are inaccurate for this game..
Seeking to historical accuracy, we should not forget about the comfort of gameplay.. again IMO..

I think I missed something. What is the comfort in gameplay in having the maximum range reduced by 30%? :hmm2:

Retaining the longer range, nothing would force us not to hold fire until we are within 3,500 m from the target. On the contrary, by shortening the stock range we loose the opportunity to attack at longer distance without having to man the gun manually :03: :O:

I could only accept your reasoning if the longer range made surface engagements unfairly easy :yep:

gap

02-22-13, 03:43 PM

first deckgun test mission ready: disarmed, stationary target at 600 m range; you can see inside its portholes without need of binoculars... not that crew quarters are an exciting view :D

http://www.mediafire.com/?lzssr4dbh2albvp

start playing with it while I am preparing the other two missions :03:

THE_MASK

02-22-13, 03:47 PM

Anyone tried my latest gun mod yet in a mission ?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=3521

volodya61

02-22-13, 03:58 PM

Retaining the longer range, nothing would force us not to hold fire until we are within 3,500 m from the target. On the contrary, by shortening the stock range we loose the opportunity to attack at longer distance without having to man the gun manually :03: :O:

Okay.. I give up :D.. do as you think is right.. :up:

start playing with it while I am preparing the other two missions :03:

Thank you..
Well.. make them for the stock range values.. I mean 900m and 2900m..
I think mission for long range is not needed.. :yep:

TheDarkWraith

02-22-13, 04:05 PM

I think the captain decided when to open fire (even if he knew the guns range wouldn't hit the target). Being captain of the sub it's my decision when to open fire and at what range.

volodya61

02-22-13, 04:07 PM

Anyone tried my latest gun mod yet in a mission ?

At the moment I'm working on improving the accuracy of onboard guns..
How to make guns worse, it will be the next stage of our work :haha:..

volodya61

02-22-13, 05:03 PM

first deckgun test mission ready: ...

It was a good excursion - Palermo harbour.. the British sub.. :up:
Did you knew that VIIC/41 doesn't has a deckgun as default?

or just joke and excursion? :D

EDIT: :hmmm: wait.. something wrong with my game or mods.. when I enable your mission with some mods enabled I can see only VIIC/41 at the boat selection screen.. if I enable mission on full stock everything seems OK.. :hmmm:

EDIT2: I've figured out it.. OHII cause this issue.. I have OHII enabled because before I've tested Flaks (using Trevally's campaign patch).. so, if we have OHII enabled we can't get the single mission of full value.. :hmmm: why? because of this - NSS_UboatX.upcge.. at least I think so..

gap

02-22-13, 06:49 PM

Anyone tried my latest gun mod yet in a mission ?

At the moment I'm working on improving the accuracy of onboard guns..
How to make guns worse, it will be the next stage of our work :haha:..

Not yet sober but, as stated by Volodya, saboaging a bit those deadly things is in our todo list. At the right time, we will give your mod a deep test :up:

I think the captain decided when to open fire (even if he knew the guns range wouldn't hit the target). Being captain of the sub it's my decision when to open fire and at what range.

Yes, this is also my opinion :arrgh!:

Okay.. I give up :D.. do as you think is right.. :up:

I don't want you to give up. I want you to agree with me , or to convince me with your arguments that I am wrong.

If it is simply a matter of different taste, we can make the shorter range oprional :up:

Thank you..
Well.. make them for the stock range values.. I mean 900m and 2900m..
I think mission for long range is not needed.. :yep:

On the contrary: a long range test mission is needed, for making sure that long range engagement won't be unrealistically easy :yep:

It was a good excursion - Palermo harbour.. the British sub.. :up:

:har:

so you discovered my joke! :O: :-j
dunno why, even with IRAI enabled I couldn't get it to attack. Maybe because of the shallow water :06:

...and by the way, it is not British, it is... Russian :haha:

Did you knew that VIIC/41 doesn't has a deckgun as default?

or just joke and excursion? :D

EDIT: :hmmm: wait.. something wrong with my game or mods.. when I enable your mission with some mods enabled I can see only VIIC/41 at the boat selection screen.. if I enable mission on full stock everything seems OK.. :hmmm:

EDIT2: I've figured out it.. OHII cause this issue.. I have OHII enabled because before I've tested Flaks (using Trevally's campaign patch).. so, if we have OHII enabled we can't get the single mission of full value.. :hmmm: why? because of this - NSS_UboatX.upcge.. at least I think so..

yes, I have created the mission over the stock campaign. OHII changes U-boat availabilities. I think this is the reason why you couldn't select the Type B :03:

P.S: if the template mission I have created is okay for you, I will edit it for different engagement ranges (minus the U class boat :D)

THE_MASK

02-22-13, 06:56 PM

At the moment I'm working on improving the accuracy of onboard guns..
How to make guns worse, it will be the next stage of our work :haha:..All i will say is , if you attack a convoy on the surface with my mod when it might be armed then the last thing you will be worrying about is deck gun range . I deleted my deck gun range mod because you dont need it .

gap

02-22-13, 07:10 PM

All i will say is , if you attack a convoy on the surface with my mod when it might be armed then the last thing you will be worrying about is deck gun range . I deleted my deck gun range mod because you dont need it .

yes, this is exactly my point. Surface engagements should be so difficult and dangerous at any distance to make range almost irrelevant :up:

volodya61

02-22-13, 07:23 PM

I don't want you to give up. I want you to agree with me , or to convince me with your arguments that I am wrong.

Okay.. I agree with you :har:.. completely..

If it is simply a matter of different taste, we can make the shorter range oprional :up:

I don't think we need it.. I just tried different settings..

On the contrary: a long range test mission is needed, for making sure that long range engagement won't be unrealistically easy :yep:

I don't think it would be easy.. back to the Flaks tests we see that that almost impossible at long range..

dunno why, even with IRAI enabled I couldn't get it to attack. Maybe because of the shallow water :06:

I have never seen an attacking boat.. in the campaign too..

...and by the way, it is not British, it is... Russian :haha:

Russian? knowing the outcome of the war, I had to ask for political asylum :haha:

P.S: if the template mission I have created is okay for you, I will edit it for different engagement ranges (minus the U class boat :D)

I think in the open sea would be better because I do not see any details on the background of the coast :yep:

All i will say is , if you attack a convoy on the surface with my mod when it might be armed then the last thing you will be worrying about is deck gun range . I deleted my deck gun range mod because you dont need it .
yes, this is exactly my point. Surface engagements should be so difficult and dangerous at any distance to make range almost irrelevant :up:

At the moment we are talking about unarmed merchants.. :yep:

gap

02-22-13, 07:40 PM

Okay.. I agree with you :har:.. completely..

I don't think we need it.. I just tried different settings..

Are you kidding me? :-? :D

I don't think it would be easy..

back to the Flaks tests we see that that almost impossible at long range..

That's good, but at some point we should make it sure: we cannot compare surface engagements with surface-to-air engagements :03:

I have never seen an attacking boat.. in the campaign too..

I thought that IRAI had fixed submarines behaviour :hmmm:

Russian? knowing the outcome of the war, I had to ask for political asylum :haha:

For sure not in Italy, after sinking that Italian unarmed passenger ships at dock in Palermo :nope:

I think in the open sea would be better because I do not see any details on the background of the coast :yep:

Okay, no problem.
I only hope that the Conte Verde got a long enough anchor chain ;)

At the moment we are talking about unarmed merchants.. :yep:

yes but... stationary? Aren't we asking a bit too much, even for an easy target?
Are you sure you don't want to me to create a second set of missions with a fast moving ship?

gap

02-22-13, 07:50 PM

P.S: do you have any preference about target's profile (AoB)? 90°, 45°, 0°?

volodya61

02-22-13, 08:29 PM

Are you kidding me? :-? :D

Yep.. :yep:

That's good, but at some point we should make it sure: we cannot compare surface engagements with surface-to-air engagements :03:

Agree..

For sure not in Italy, after sinking that Italian unarmed passenger ships at dock in Palermo :nope:

Of course no.. was it a Russian boat? in USSR then :)

yes but... stationary? Aren't we asking a bit too much, even for an easy target?
Are you sure you don't want to me to create a second set of missions with a fast moving ship?

Probably yes.. why not? but how fast? 10-12 knots? or more? :hmmm:

P.S: do you have any preference about target's profile (AoB)? 90°, 45°, 0°?

90° for a start.. after first tests we will see..

PS: don't forget about mission with a lot of planes :D I think it will be funny.. :)

volodya61

02-22-13, 09:17 PM

Forgot to say
Don't you think that the target is a bit too large? they even miss this target though :D

22 shots, 17/5-miss

gap

02-23-13, 11:34 AM

Yep.. :yep:

Okay, I see you are too stubborn to admit that you were wrong! :D

Of course no.. was it a Russian boat? in USSR then :)

a Russian citizen commanding a German Uboot? :hmmm:
Had you been captured abord the USSR submarine I put in our mission, I think you would have been deported in a gulag, if not sumarily executed :yep:

Probably yes.. why not? but how fast? 10-12 knots? or more? :hmmm:

90° for a start.. after first tests we will see..

Forgot to say
Don't you think that the target is a bit too large? they even miss this target though :D

22 shots, 17/5-miss

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?dk54jp6lz5jwnwu :up:

three big passenger ships in this mission:

1st target - range: ca. 1 km, bearing: 270 deg, course: 0 deg, speed: 0 kn
2nd target - range: ca. 3 km, bearing: 0 deg, course: 90 deg, speed: 0 kn
3rd target - range: ca. 5 km, bearing: 90 deg, course: 180 deg, speed: 0 kn

let me know if you need for smaller targets, moving targets or different ranges to target, and I will modify the mission accordingly

PS: don't forget about mission with a lot of planes :D I think it will be funny.. :)

This one will be the nest one. Give me a few :up:

volodya61

02-23-13, 11:49 AM

Okay, I see you are too stubborn to admit that you were wrong! :D

:har:

..I think you would have been deported in a gulag, if not sumarily executed :yep:

GULAG is better choice than seabed :yep:
at least I think so :03:

..let me know if you need for smaller targets, moving targets or different ranges to target, and I will modify the mission accordingly

I will.. a bit later..

gap

02-23-13, 12:01 PM

:har:

since you insist, I will propose a maximum range of 12 km :O: :woot:

GULAG is better choice than seabed :yep:
at least I think so :03:

It all tepends on season and on water depth above the seabed. I have never had the honour to be hosted in a GULAG, but I guess that 50 cm of warm Mediterranean water are a better place :D

I will.. a bit later..

Okay, working on the airplane mission now. Do you have any preference about planes types and number?

volodya61

02-23-13, 12:59 PM

since you insist, I will propose a maximum range of 12 km :O: :woot:

Completely agree with you :yep:
:har:

..but I guess that 50 cm of warm Mediterranean water are a better place :D

Well, if in this case.. then always yes.. agree.. :)

Okay, working on the airplane mission now. Do you have any preference about planes types and number?

types - different.. number - many.. and more!

Seems like a 'tolerance angles' method not working.. just set 50 (was 0,75) for deckgun and nothing change.. almost.. changes at the margin of error.. :hmmm:

Remains to consider the Sober's method..

gap

02-23-13, 01:07 PM

types - different.. number - many.. and more!

Okay, now I have got to go out with friends. I will prepare it tomorrow or later tonight :up:

Seems like a 'tolerance angles' method not working.. just set 50 (was 0,75) for deckgun and nothing change.. almost.. changes at the margin of error.. :hmmm:

what do you mean by "changes at the margin of error"? :hmmm:
have you tried setting wind speed as high as possible?

Remains to consider the Sober's method..

:yep:

volodya61

02-23-13, 01:42 PM

what do you mean by "changes at the margin of error"? :hmmm:

I don't know how to say.. insignificant.. within the limits of permissible variation..

have you tried setting wind speed as high as possible?

Yes.. just set tolerance to 100 and wind speed to 10.. nothing..

Forgot to say, this 'cheat', when you ordered 'battle stations' using order's bar and your gunners don't leave the guns even when wind speed is 10-12m, is not working for deckgun gunners.. :)

V13dweller

02-23-13, 01:50 PM

I could not help to notice, that the Soldati class destroyer has two KGun Mk 9's, and no depth charge racks, I decided to test how the ship would hunt submarines with this unusual loadout, the tests yielded poor results, the Soldati was unable to land even a single hit on the British submarine, because the Kgun has a fifteen second reload time, meaning that it hold has one chance per-pass to get a hit.
But the ship doesn't compensate for not have any depth charge racks, to it steams over the sub throwing depth charges off to the side but with no hits.
So I used TDW's GR2 editor to reverse the Node's for the depth charge throwers, and I put depth charge racks on instead, and now it is perfectly capable of sinking enemy submarines.

From what I could find on the web, the Soldati was not an anti submarine vessel at all, and it did not have a sonar/hydrophone let alone depth charges.

volodya61

02-23-13, 05:10 PM

..let me know if you need for smaller targets, moving targets or different ranges to target, and I will modify the mission accordingly..

Okay.. I need one fast target, 15-20 knots, bearing 0 deg, course 90 deg, range 1 km..

When target's speed is 0 hard to figure something.. :hmmm:

gap

02-24-13, 01:03 PM

Okay.. I need one fast target, 15-20 knots, bearing 0 deg, course 90 deg, range 1 km..

When target's speed is 0 hard to figure something.. :hmmm:

http://www.mediafire.com/?2nxkczuy0qi6mna :up:

volodya61

02-24-13, 01:47 PM

OK, I got it.. :up:

I thought for a little yesterday :O:
We have played with the tolerance angles.. what for? in any case, changes don't affect the accuracy regarding of weather or sea conditions..
Nevertheless, I was finally convinced yesterday that the changes in the tolerance angles not lead to any changes in accuracy.. :yep:

EDIT: Ooops.. again new face.. :D

gap

02-24-13, 01:58 PM

I thought for a little yesterday :O:
We have played with the tolerance angles.. what for? in any case, changes don't affect the accuracy regarding of weather or sea conditions..
Nevertheless, I was finally convinced yesterday that the changes in the tolerance angles not lead to any changes in accuracy.. :yep:

yes, standing at the poor results we have achieved so far, investigating about those factors was only a waste of time. I wonder if they are of any use at all as far as SH5 is concerned :hmmm:

types - different.. number - many.. and more!

Volodya's Air Attack Folly (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?l7fdzdvht5luhjs)

Run it at your own risk :03: :D

Targor Avelany

02-24-13, 02:00 PM

Volodya's Air Attack Folly (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?l7fdzdvht5luhjs)

Run it at your own risk :03: :D
and we demand a video!!!!! :haha:

volodya61

02-24-13, 02:14 PM

Volodya's Air Attack Folly (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?l7fdzdvht5luhjs)

Run it at your own risk :03: :D

Folly?.. maybe.. maybe not :hmm2:
I'll say it a little later :haha:

..I wonder if they are of any use at all as far as SH5 is concerned :hmmm:

but.. if we set angle=0 then nothing.. no shoot, no move, no animation.. :hmmm:

gap

02-24-13, 02:57 PM

Folly?.. maybe.. maybe not :hmm2:
I'll say it a little later :haha:

and we demand a video!!!!! :haha:

:agree:

but.. if we set angle=0 then nothing.. no shoot, no move, no animation.. :hmmm:

That's also true. The setting is applied, but how? :06:

volodya61

02-24-13, 03:32 PM

Probably you want to ask me - Who won? :03:
We are!
Even with VIIC, even with only one single C30 :D
I'm afraid Trevally will need to place a lot more air in the campaign :rotfl2:

Try it and I'm sure you'll like and enjoy it, it's real fun - http://rghost.ru/44089413

But now become a must the question - how to make them worse? :hmmm:

volodya61

02-24-13, 03:37 PM

Now I will try it with another IRAI, maybe with IRAI 0.37 it could not be so easy and simply.. :)

gap

02-24-13, 04:10 PM

Probably you want to ask me - Who won? :03:
We are!
Even with VIIC, even with only one single C30 :D

:o

Have you tried lowering crew veterancy level?

But now become a must the question - how to make them worse? :hmmm:

for sure by adjusting elevation/train speed, maybe by tuning down a bit your super accurate index settings, but...

Now I will try it with another IRAI, maybe with IRAI 0.37 it could not be so easy and simply.. :)

...before anything else, switch IRAI version. I gave those planes plenty of torpedoes, bombs and depth charges, which they won't use with the latest IRAI "cheat" :03:

volodya61

02-24-13, 04:37 PM

:o

Have you tried lowering crew veterancy level?

Not yet.. will try it..

...before anything else, switch IRAI version. I gave those planes plenty of torpedoes, bombs and depth charges, which they won't use with the latest IRAI "cheat" :03:

Yes, with IRAI 0.37 it was much harder.. and, in my opinion, plane's behavior was more realistic than with the v0.39.. but.. after two-three approaches they also don't shoot and drop bombs..
I think we are not able to do something with it.. maybe TDW.. someday..

PS: I have deleted the file, did you get it?

gap

02-24-13, 05:44 PM

Yes, with IRAI 0.37 it was much harder.. and, in my opinion, plane's behavior was more realistic than with the v0.39.. but.. after two-three approaches they also don't shoot and drop bombs..
I think we are not able to do something with it.. maybe TDW.. someday..

Keep in mind that airplanes have limited bomb loadouts. But imo just one bomb hit should be devastating.

PS: I have deleted the file, did you get it?

yes :up:

volodya61

02-24-13, 06:24 PM

Keep in mind that airplanes have limited bomb loadouts. But imo just one bomb hit should be devastating.

If the boat is on the move and the planes come from the starboard/port side, all the bombs explode astern.. we unfortunately can't do anything with it.. these are plains' scripts.. :shifty:

gap

02-24-13, 06:30 PM

If the boat is on the move and the planes come from the starboard/port side, all the bombs explode astern.. we unfortunately can't do anything with it.. these are plains' scripts.. :shifty:

What about increasing damage radius? :hmmm:

volodya61

02-24-13, 06:39 PM

What about increasing damage radius? :hmmm:

Yes, I think now it's acceptable.. now we have a miracle weapon (only need a little to spoil :D I'm already working on it)..
Because now seems they explode in 5-10 meters astern and without any damage..

EDIT: IIRC bombs also included in IRAI :06:

volodya61

02-25-13, 04:55 PM

gap

02-25-13, 05:27 PM

Hi Gabriele!

Everything fine with the last deckgun mission.. tests are.. hm.. testing :D with the exception one small issue.. after the mission start, liner immediately slows speed to 4 knots..
Is there a way to avoid it?

I think this behaviour is connected with the issue reported by Rongel in IRAI thread:

When I attack a convoy and they spot me or are alerted by a torpedo explosion, all the ships start to make evasive manuevers and slow down to 5 knots.

Unfortunately, as stated by TDW in his reply: :-?

We have no control over how the AI uses evasive maneuvers when a torpedo is spotted. There is one function that takes care of it and I have no control over it :nope: Same thing with the AI collision detection. No control.

gap

02-27-13, 12:14 PM

it seems I am going to have a quiet afternoon...
time to start bringing my tweaks over Volodya's reworked guns :sunny:

Volodya, have you made any progress since the last time you sent me your files?

volodya61

02-27-13, 12:21 PM

Volodya, have you made any progress since the last time you sent me your files?

Nope.. :)

I have time for laziness.. last days.. :D

gap

02-27-13, 12:29 PM

Nope.. :)

I have time for laziness.. last days.. :D

Enjoy your laziness, then. :D
You have already done a lot: it is my time to work on our mod now :salute:

P.S: has anyone dared to test Rongel's Torpedo malfunctions test v 2?

gap

02-27-13, 02:30 PM

This is a list of shells that could fired by 20mm Flaks, with their specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_Flak_30/38/Flakvierling#Ammunition

I am thinking to give single guns the following ammo outfit:

AP: 280 (ca. 25%)
HE: 280 (ca. 25%)
AA: 540 (ca. 50%)
total: 1,100

which specs, among the ones stated by Wikipedia, should we give to each shell type? :hmm2:

volodya61

02-28-13, 10:20 AM

This is a list of shells that could fired by 20mm Flaks, with their specs.
I am thinking to give single guns the following ammo outfit:

AP: 280 (ca. 25%)
HE: 280 (ca. 25%)
AA: 540 (ca. 50%)
total: 1,100

:hmmm: Hey mate, I set the number of rounds in my files based on that your post - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1993108&postcount=227

and total (I think so) should be 2200 for single and 4400 for twin because of this -

Unfortunately we can set only the total number of bullets for each type of guns.. regardless of their number on board.. I mean, if we set 1000 bullets to type C/38 then we will have only 1000 bullets for C/38, regardless one or two or three C/38 we have..

gap

02-28-13, 11:24 AM

:hmmm: Hey mate, I set the number of rounds in my files based on that your post - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1993108&postcount=227

and total (I think so) should be 2200 for single and 4400 for twin because of this -

For a start, thank you for this reminder: I couldn't find that post anymore :D

but please read it with care: it states ca. 1,100 shells per muzzle (20mm Flaks). It is 1,100 for single mounting guns, 2,200 for twin guns and 4,400 for quad mountings :03:

The loadouts you are trying to pack into our Uboats is a bit excessive, in my opinion. I know for sure that Trevally and TDW are an example of patriotism. You can notices it from the care they have put into making Allied defences stronger, and Allied crews more trained. On the other hand, I start thinking that you are a Nazi spy in the heart of Russian Mother Motherland... :huh:

Have you heard that Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact is not effective since June '41? :O: :haha:

volodya61

02-28-13, 11:51 AM

The loadouts you are trying to pack into our Uboats is a bit excessive, in my opinion.

Okay.. we have VIIC, two single C30 on top of the conning and one C30 on the wintergarden.. so, we have only 1100 rounds to the three flaks.. will it normal, in your opinion?

gap

02-28-13, 12:00 PM

Okay.. we have VIIC, two single C30 on top of the conning and one C30 on the wintergarden.. so, we have only 1100 rounds to the three flaks.. will it normal, in your opinion?

Why do you think so? SH5 ammo loadouts are gun-based. We would have 1,100 rounds per each gun, which is a lot more than the stock 240 rounds...

volodya61

02-28-13, 12:06 PM

Why do you think so? SH5 ammo loadouts are gun-based. We would have 1,100 rounds per each gun, which is a lot more than the stock 240 rounds...

I don't think, I just know..
We would have 1,100 rounds for each type of gun.. not for each gun..

gap

02-28-13, 12:29 PM

I don't think, I just know..
We would have 1,100 rounds for each type of gun.. not for each gun..

Have you tested it? Not that I don't believe you (for sure you have fiddled much more than me with Flak guns in game), but having individual ammo_storage settings when loadouts are relative to gun type, makes little sense to me: a global setting in UPCDataGE would have been enough. :hmmm:

In any case, afaik the maximum number of guns of the same type which can be fitted on the conning tower is two light Flaks (the wintergarten accepts only one heavy flak); I would prefer having only 1,100 shells available for 2 single Flaks (which would be anyway ca. 5 times more than stock loadout) than 2,200 for just one Flak. My usual two cents :)

volodya61

02-28-13, 12:43 PM

Okay..
I think we have totally misunderstanding now :D.. language barrier or so :shifty:..
I have already told you about this issue -
Unfortunately we can set only the total number of bullets for each type of guns.. regardless of their number on board.. I mean, if we set 1000 bullets to type C/38 then we will have only 1000 bullets for C/38, regardless one or two or three C/38 we have..

VIIC U-boat have 'wintergarten' but haven't able to place there heavy flaks.. so, we can place there only one more light flak.. so, we will have three light flaks on-board.. so, we will have total 1100 rounds to three C30 or total 2200 rounds to three C38..

gap

02-28-13, 01:41 PM

just tested in campaign.

My U-boat was equipped with two identical twin 20 mm Flak 38 guns (stock ammo_storage setting: 480 rounds). Each of them had, as expected, 480 shells available. Total 20mm ammo loadout was thus 960 shells, though the game is not showing it: loadouts for each single gun are not cumulated in a common store. This implies that if a gun runs out of ammo, it cannot be reloaded with the remaining shells of similar guns eventually fitted onboard. :-?

I am sorry, but you were wrog :)

Trevally.

02-28-13, 02:11 PM

I am sorry, but you were wrog :)

:eek:

:O::D

gap

02-28-13, 02:20 PM

:eek:

:O::D

Once in a while, even we geniuses can make a mistake :know: :O:

Targor Avelany

02-28-13, 02:21 PM

Once in a while, even we geniuses can make a mistake :know: :O:

you are very shy, aren't ya?! :) :har: :O:

gap

02-28-13, 02:28 PM

you are very shy, aren't ya?! :) :har: :O:

Targor, have I to specify that the "we geniuses" expression was used considering you as the leader? :O: :D

Out of jokes, I think you Russians got special "abstrac logic" qualities. This is why you excel in mathematics, informatics, chess, etc. :yep:

volodya61

02-28-13, 02:45 PM

I am sorry, but you were wrong :)

:oops::oops::oops:

just tested it again.. my failure..
but why? there was some reason why I decided so..
I will going to find it again.. :timeout:

well, if we will exclude your reason.. :haha:

Once in a while, even we geniuses can make a mistake :know: :O:

Targor Avelany

02-28-13, 03:03 PM

Targor, have I to specify that the "we geniuses" expression was used considering you as the leader? :O: :D

Out of jokes, I think you Russians got special "abstrac logic" qualities. This is why you excel in mathematics, informatics, chess, etc. :yep:

I was just bugging you, buddy. :)

And I don't think that the above applies just to russians :) It depends on a person, not on a nationality.

THE_MASK

02-28-13, 03:06 PM

When i worked on my sobers bad weather deck gun V5 SH5 mod i just looked at the object/guns . I didnt realise there were obj_Turret in the submarine sim file as well .

gap

02-28-13, 04:20 PM

:oops::oops::oops:

just tested it again.. my failure..
but why? there was some reason why I decided so..
I will going to find it again.. :timeout:

well, if we will exclude your reason.. :haha:

Not a failure Volodya: I would call it a little lapse
It can happen when dealing with many things at once :up:

but let's discuss my original question now: :03:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2016952&postcount=594

after a second thought, I am propending for giving each 20mm gun slightly diffrent outfits, depending on when it will become available (only HE shells for early outfit, a 25-75% mix of AP and HE shells for later guns). What do you think?

I was just bugging you, buddy. :)

And I don't think that the above applies just to russians :) It depends on a person, not on a nationality.

personal inclinations are obviously subjective, but education systems change from country to country. Schools and achademic institutions can encourage some skills rather than others :yep:

When i worked on my sobers bad weather deck gun V5 SH5 mod i just looked at the object/guns . I didnt realise there were obj_Turret in the submarine sim file as well .

Good remark Sober :salute:

that obj_turret controller is linked to the deck gun bone. Most of the properties set in it, are also set (or could have been set) with the normal obj_gun controller.

Probably it adds some restrictions relative to the U-boat type the gun is fitted on. Another idea that came to my mind is that one of the two controllers is applied to AI crew, and the other to the player :hmm2:

volodya61

02-28-13, 05:11 PM

..after a second thought, I am propending for giving each 20mm gun slightly diffrent outfits, depending on when it will become available (only HE shells for early outfit, a 25-75% mix of AP and HE shells for later guns). What do you think?

as you can see, I set AP shells only to M42..
what guns are you planning to equip with AP shells?
my (in my edited EUF) dates for guns availability are:
20mm C30 - 01.09.39
37mm C30 - 01.09.39
20mm C30-2 - 01.01.40
20mm C38 - 01.06.40
20mm C38 Shield - 01.03.41
20mm Vierling - 10.12.41
37mm M42 - 01.06.42

gap

02-28-13, 06:03 PM

as you can see, I set AP shells only to M42..
what guns are you planning to equip with AP shells?
my (in my edited EUF) dates for guns availability are:
20mm C30 - 01.09.39
37mm C30 - 01.09.39
20mm C30-2 - 01.01.40
20mm C38 - 01.06.40
20mm C38 Shield - 01.03.41
20mm Vierling - 10.12.41
37mm M42 - 01.06.42

I haven't looked in depth into availability dates yet, but according to the information collected from navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_Main.htm) and from navypedia.org (http://www.navypedia.org/arms/germany/arms_ger_guns.htm), years should be more or less:

20mm Flak C30 (20mm_C30): 1934
20mm Flak C30 twin (20mm_C38_Twin): 1939
20mm Flak C38 (20mm_C30_2): 1940
37mm Flak C30 (37mmM): 1940
20mm Flak C38 quad (Vierling): 1941
20mm Flak C38 twin (20mm_C38_Twin_Shield): 1944
37mm Flak M42 (37mmSA): 1944
37mm Flak M42 twin (37mmTSA)*: 1944

* when/if fixed (I couldn't find evidence that it was uses aboard U-boat though)

As you can see, the above dates are relative to the gun conversions I have suggested a while ago. ;)
What do you think

volodya61

02-28-13, 06:25 PM

There is not available 20mm C30 twin in the game.. only 20mm C30 single improved (20mm C30-2 in my list)..
EDIT: Sorry, I was inattentive as always :)

As for guns available from 1944.. what do you think, how many players are really 'seeing' year 1944 in this game?

gap

02-28-13, 06:44 PM

As for guns available from 1944.. what do you think, how many players are really 'seeing' year 1944 in this game?

This is their business. Following the same reasoning, Trevally and Zedi shouldn't have extended the stock campaign :O:

...but for hasty players and for testing purposes we can release an "all at once" patch, using the same trick as EUF, a sort of "silentotto" for equipment :03:

Do you agree?

EDIT:
also stick in mind that the years suggested below are not carved in the stone. If we get better information, we can eventually anticipate some of them, corresponding to periods that the gun was being tested. But as a general rule, I wouldn't use totally invented dates just for pleasing the casual player :)

gap

02-28-13, 07:04 PM

Forgot to report that yesterday or the day before yesterday, I have noticed that the 'barrel' field in the group 'Fire', the same as trav/elev tolerance, (wpn_Cannon controller) is empty.

Probably irrelevant, but I am curious to know what woul happen if we fill in the field with the name of the barrel subset :hmm2:

volodya61

02-28-13, 07:58 PM

...but for hasty players and for testing purposes we can release an "all at once" patch, using the same trick as EUF, a sort of "silentotto" for equipment :03:

Do you agree?

I don't think the way of EUF was initially right/correct way..
I agree with you about set of historically correct dates and.. see below..

also stick in mind that the years suggested below are not carved in the stone. If we get better information, we can eventually anticipate some of them, corresponding to periods that the gun was being tested. But as a general rule, I wouldn't use totally invented dates just for pleasing the casual player :)

My mod-pack is initially made for 'casual players' and I anytime can set there any dates what I want..

Probably irrelevant, but I am curious to know what woul happen if we fill in the field with the name of the barrel subset :hmm2:

and what we can fill in that field? for example?

PS: and what is barrel? :D because to me the word "barrel" is associated only with the measure of the volume of oil :oops:

gap

02-28-13, 08:21 PM

I don't think the way of EUF was initially right/correct way..

I agree. Only good for testing. But many "casual" players liked it this way :-?

I agree with you about set of historically correct dates and.. see below..

My mod-pack is initially made for 'casual players' and I anytime can set there any dates what I want..

Unfortunately, the compromise between historical accuracy and "player friendliness" is not alway easy. But, as with other settings, we can prepare a version for hardcore players with historical availability dates (or at least likely dates...) and another version for "take it easy" players, featuring a mix of likely and fictional dates :03:

and what we can fill in that field? for example?

PS: and what is barrel? :D because to me the word "barrel" is associated only with the measure of the volume of oil :oops:

yep, the word got several meanings :yep:

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_barrel)'s definition:

A gun barrel is the tube, usually metal, through which a controlled explosion or rapid expansion of gases are released in order to propel a projectile out of the end at a high velocity.

As for the name to be set in the barrel field, you can get it from the other barrel field, in the Debug group :up:

keysersoze

02-28-13, 09:17 PM

I haven't looked in depth into availability dates yet, but according to the information collected from navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_Main.htm) and from navypedia.org (http://www.navypedia.org/arms/germany/arms_ger_guns.htm), years should be more or less:

20mm Flak C30 (20mm_C30): 1934
20mm Flak C30 twin (20mm_C38_Twin): 1939
20mm Flak C38 (20mm_C30_2): 1940
37mm Flak C30 (37mmM): 1940
20mm Flak C38 quad (Vierling): 1941
20mm Flak C38 twin (20mm_C38_Twin_Shield): 1944
37mm Flak M42 (37mmSA): 1944
37mm Flak M42 twin (37mmTSA)*: 1944

* when/if fixed (I couldn't find evidence that it was uses aboard U-boat though)

As you can see, the above dates are relative to the gun conversions I have suggested a while ago. ;)
What do you think

I wonder if some of these dates indicate initial availability, but not operational installation. The evolution of U-boat flak armament can be maddeningly tricky to follow, but it seems to me that all the flak upgrades can basically be traced back to June 1942, when BdU decided that U-boats needed vastly strengthened anti-aircraft capabilities.The confusing part, though, is that there were never enough of the desired weapon available (this is especially true of the 3.7 cm). Because of this, upgrades proceeded in a series of stopgap measures from June 1942 until almost the end of the war.

After lots of research and confusion, I decided the easiest way to understand flak availability was to track the tower (turm) conversions. Here is the data I've been able to find so far:

Turm 0
Armament: one 2 cm C/30 on tower

Distribution: all boats until mid-1942 (Stern, 100)

Turm I
Armament: two 15 mm MG151 (Twin) on bridge, one 2 cm C/30 Twin on Wintergarten

Distribution: fitted only to U 553 sometime between June and Sept. 1942

Turm I (Mediterranean, with specially enlarged bridge)
Armament: two 12.3 mm (Twin) Breda machine guns on bridge, one 2 cm (C/30?) on bridge

Distribution: According to Rössler (p. 188), it “was built into certain Mediterranean U-boats and used operationally in 1943 (U 81 and U 453)”

Turm II
Armament: one 2 cm C/38 on bridge, one 2 cm C/38 on Wintergarten

Distribution: installation began in December 1942 but encountered problems that were not resolved until mid-January 1943. Installed in frontline boats beginning in May 1943 and standard on all newly-built boats from June 1943 (Rössler, 188). This was an interim turm, adopted because neither the twin nor the quad mounts of the C/38 were available in enough numbers to allow conversion to Turm IV

Turm III (Only for Type VIIDs)
Armament: two 2 cm C/38 on a specially widened bridge

Distribution: no information

Turm IV
Armament: two 2 cm C/38 Twin on bridge, one 2 cm C/38 Quad on Wintergarten

Distribution: First installed in March/April 1943 for testing on U 758. See BdU war log for 15 June 1943 (above) for availability. According to Stern (p. 108-109), there were enough C/38 Twins available by October 1943 and enough Quads by November 1943 to fit all boats. Rössler (p. 188) says that, by August 1943, no boats were allowed to leave port without the Turm IV upgrade.

Note: the 2 cm C/38 Quad was to be replaced by the 3.7 cm mount when it became available (Stern, 105); by 1 December 1944, 18 boats had had their 2 cm C/38 Quad exchanged for a single 3.7 cm. Stern writes that “some very late VIICs were fitted with a twin 3.7 cm mount” (p. 108)

Turm V
Armament: (added Flak platform forward of tower structure)

Distribution: experimentally fitted to U 362

Turm VI
Armament: (same as Turm V, except forward Flak platform was on a separate pedestal)

Distribution: experimentally fitted to U 673 and U 973

Turm VII
Armament: (added a Flak platform that completely circled the tower) four single 3.7 cm mounts, two forward and two aft

Distribution: this was quite rare, but no records exist as to which boats were outfitted (Stern, 109)

gap

02-28-13, 09:55 PM

keysersoze

02-28-13, 11:45 PM

Thank you very much Keysersoze, this information is very helpful. :yeah:

Tomorrow I will try to summarize it in therms of gun ability dates, but I see there is enough material for revising stock availability dates of turm upgrades :yep: :up:

P.S: I have replied to your PM. Sorry for the delay :)

Hi gap

I have e-mailed the document we've spoken about in PM to you (by the way, your PM inbox is full). Let me know if you did not receive the e-mail or if there were problems with the attachment.

Thanks again for letting me help with your research!

keysersoze

volodya61

03-01-13, 02:42 AM

yep, the word got several meanings :yep:
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_barrel)'s definition:

Okay.. I've read this.. but what's mean the entry 'muzzles' in this case?

As for the name to be set in the barrel field, you can get it from the other barrel field, in the Debug group :up:

Well, I got it from Obj_Turrent group and will see what will happen if I'll set other values in Trev/Elev tolerance fields now..

volodya61

03-01-13, 04:56 AM

..will see what will happen if I'll set other values in Trev/Elev tolerance fields now..

nothing.. again.. :-?

PS: also have tried to swap AP and HE entries in HEX editor.. the editor shows that the entries swapped but.. in the Goblyn controller screen everything as before.. why?

EDIT: PPS: mediafire design has changed :06:

volodya61

03-01-13, 07:56 AM

Again not good news.. :-?

Elevation speed is not working as we thought.. it was wrong parameter.. at least for Flak guns.. maybe for heavy, slow guns like deck gun is.. in two words: guns accuracy decreases with very high speed decreases but this not depend of sea/wind states.. I can make the same with change animation in 0.01-0.03 sec..

I think the only right parameter is elevation tolerance, but how can we make it work?

:/\\!!

gap

03-01-13, 12:14 PM

Hi gap

I have e-mailed the document we've spoken about in PM to you (by the way, your PM inbox is full). Let me know if you did not receive the e-mail or if there were problems with the attachment.

Thanks again for letting me help with your research!

keysersoze

Thank you for your valuable support, keysersoze, you have made an outstanding work with that document :yep:

I have just replied to your e-mail and made some free space in my PM box. :up:

gap

03-01-13, 01:16 PM

Okay.. I've read this.. but what's mean the entry 'muzzles' in this case?

'muzzles' settings are more easy than the rest, and cool things can probably be done messing with them. :sunny:
My understanding of them is that they define how far apart along the cartesian axes gun muzzles are set (for multiple mounting guns). I am not sure about the unit used, but it is probably meters.

In game they might determine a few things:

- muzzles firing order (following the same order as in the sim file)
- muzzle flash fx distances
- shells dispersions (the difference between the ideal aiming point and the trajectories of shells fired by different muzzles).

Talking about dispersion, in real life it is affected by muzzle distances and by guns convergence (i.e. the slight inclination of lateral barrel axes compensating for muzzle distances). In general, and within a certain limit, the shorter gun axes distances, the lesser is dispersion. But too close gun axes increase dispersion rather than reducing it, due to the vibration caused and to the interference among different shells. I doubt that this effect is simulated in SH5 (so, guns which were known to have an high dispersion should be given an higher muzzle distance than they historically had). As for convergence, it was calculated over an ideal target range. The longer the distance between the target and the convergence range, the wider the dispersion. I ignore if SH5 got a convergence range distance, but provided that it was modelled, it could be related with the 'Restr_dist' parameter.

Well, I got it from Obj_Turrent group and will see what will happen if I'll set other values in Trev/Elev tolerance fields now..

nothing.. again.. :-?

Have you noticed any other change, unrelated with guns accuracy? :hmmm:

PS: also have tried to swap AP and HE entries in HEX editor.. the editor shows that the entries swapped but.. in the Goblyn controller screen everything as before.. why?

yes, TDW had tested it already: seems to be hardcoded or set elsewhere. :-?

Again not good news.. :-?

Elevation speed is not working as we thought.. it was wrong parameter.. at least for Flak guns.. maybe for heavy, slow guns like deck gun is.. in two words: guns accuracy decreases with very high speed decreases but this not depend of sea/wind states.. I can make the same with change animation in 0.01-0.03 sec..

I think the only right parameter is elevation tolerance, but how can we make it work?

:/\\!!

I need time to elaborate your information.

We could tweak animation indices for making those guns lesser accurate, but it doesn't seem the correct way to do it anyway: the gun would be always aiming a bit to the right, to the left, to the top, etc, but we are rather looking for a random error.

There must be a way to do it. Maybe gunner skills in UPCDataGE settings? :hmm2:

gap

03-01-13, 01:34 PM

The document kindly provided by keysersoze. Thank you again, mate :up:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7MK2Uypqv8OdFZJYVhkaTRSdFE/edit?usp=sharing

It deals with:

Flak guns specs and service notes
Conning tower upgrades armaments and service notes
Radars specs and service notes
Radar Warning Receivers specs and service notes
Type VIIC U-boats turning radii/speeds
Escort ships effectiveness, turning radii, etc.

volodya61

03-01-13, 02:28 PM

Have you noticed any other change, unrelated with guns accuracy? :hmmm:

No..

I need time to elaborate your information.

Okay..
I found a new toy.. I d/l and installed Photoshop, now studying.. :D

We could tweak animation indices for making those guns lesser accurate, but it doesn't seem the correct way to do it anyway..

I too think that it isn't the right way to do it..

Targor Avelany

03-01-13, 02:33 PM

No..

Okay..
I found a new toy.. I d/l and installed Photoshop, now studying.. :D

I too think that it isn't the right way to do it..

GET GIMP!!!!!

volodya61

03-01-13, 02:58 PM

GET GIMP!!!!!

:hmmm: what is GIMP :06:

Trevally.

03-01-13, 02:59 PM

GET GIMP!!!!!

:o

http://www.thetorontothymes.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Gimp..jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=2Iqly1sKrwiIQM&tbnid=Do0_A5hW-J9QRM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwADhi&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetorontothymes.com%2F76-of-american-households-have-a-gimp-in-their-cellar%2F&ei=kwgxUayBH4eO0AXmkYGADg&psig=AFQjCNG1vSPtHcedNQRlNO8HKRkZL58i8g&ust=1362254355561372)

Targor Avelany

03-01-13, 03:11 PM

:hmmm: what is GIMP :06:

http://www.gimp.org/
Really good image editor and free. Sometimes I trully enjoy it much more then Photoshop.

:o

http://www.thetorontothymes.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Gimp..jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=2Iqly1sKrwiIQM&tbnid=Do0_A5hW-J9QRM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwADhi&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetorontothymes.com%2F76-of-american-households-have-a-gimp-in-their-cellar%2F&ei=kwgxUayBH4eO0AXmkYGADg&psig=AFQjCNG1vSPtHcedNQRlNO8HKRkZL58i8g&ust=1362254355561372)

:har:

volodya61

03-01-13, 03:16 PM

http://www.gimp.org/
Really good image editor and free. Sometimes I trully enjoy it much more then Photoshop.

Thanks mate :sunny:

Targor Avelany

03-01-13, 03:22 PM

Thanks mate :sunny:

make sure you get yourself a .dds plug in right away, as a lot of images in sh5 are .dds

Also, the .raw plug-in is not working very well atm (at least I have not been able to config it properly yet).

gap

03-01-13, 03:32 PM

No..

:wah:

Okay..
I found a new toy.. I d/l and installed Photoshop, now studying.. :D

Volodya, друг, is this a polite way to complain about my texture retouching services? :O: :D

I too think that it isn't the right way to do it..

Unfortunately not, but I am sure we will find a better way :up:

volodya61

03-01-13, 03:50 PM

make sure you get yourself a .dds plug in right away, as a lot of images in sh5 are .dds

Also, the .raw plug-in is not working very well atm (at least I have not been able to config it properly yet).

Is this correct that .dds plugin made by January 3, 2008?

Volodya, друг, is this a polite way to complain about my texture retouching services? :O: :D

:har::rotfl2:

Gabriele, amico, absolutely not.. but we should always learn something new :up:

Unfortunately not, but I am sure we will find a better way :up:

Community believes in us.. :subsim:
(at least I hope so)

Targor Avelany

03-01-13, 04:10 PM

Is this correct that .dds plugin made by January 3, 2008?

I believe so. But I have found another on google: http://code.google.com/p/gimp-dds/

I have not tested it, but I believe the 2008 is the one that I have installed atm. Will test the newer one once I get a chance.

volodya61

03-01-13, 04:21 PM

I believe so. But I have found another on google: http://code.google.com/p/gimp-dds/

Thank you once more :woot:

gap

03-01-13, 04:34 PM

Is this correct that .dds plugin made by January 3, 2008?

If you are going to use photoshop, download the latest dds plugin from the following page:

https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-texture-tools-adobe-photoshop

Make sure to pick the right version for your system (32 or 64 bit).

:har::rotfl2:

Gabriele, amico, absolutely not.. but we should always learn something new :up:

In Sicily (or rather in the part of Sicily where I am coming from), a friend would address me simply by using the nick compare, not accompanied with the first name.
Compare literally means godfather (lol :haha:), but in the local slang is commonly used as old pal, mate :03:

End of the cultural exchange. Talking about photoshop, it is a very powerful tool. Good that you decided to learn it.

A few years ago I had tried a linux version of GIMP. It is a good alternative to Photoshop, and it got the dvantage of being a freeware, but I cannot tell you more than this, because it was installed on a computer at my office, and I had no time to use more than the basic functions.

Another good options, according to the reviews I have read on subsim and elsewhere on the web, is Pain.NET. It is a freeware as well, and it got native support of dds format.

Finally, an handy tool tha I use often for checking dds compression formats of yet existing dds files, is The Compressionator. :03:

Community believes in us.. :subsim:
(at least I hope so)

Gosh, what a resposibility :doh:

volodya61

03-02-13, 08:29 AM

Hi compare :salute:
:O:

If you are going to use photoshop, download the latest dds plugin from the following page..

Of course I did it at once :yep:

Talking about photoshop, it is a very powerful tool. Good that you decided to learn it.

And very complicated for a newcomer who is trying it first time.. :)

Another good options, according to the reviews I have read on subsim and elsewhere on the web, is Pain.NET. It is a freeware as well, and it got native support of dds format.

Bad tool.. I tried it before.. it always reduces the texture quality while saving (with any enabled settings)..

Finally, an handy tool tha I use often for checking dds compression formats of yet existing dds files, is The Compressionator. :03:

Is this tool for ATI only or..?

Gosh, what a resposibility :doh:

Yeah.. :yep:

gap

03-02-13, 08:50 AM

Hi compare :salute:
:O:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/rofl.gif :har:

Of course I did it at once :yep:

Good :up:

And very complicated for a newcomer who is trying it first time.. :)

You will learn it with the practice. Ask here if you need for any help :)

Bad tool.. I tried it before.. it always reduces the texture quality while saving (with any enabled settings)..

Really? I can't say anything, because I haven't ever used it

Is this tool for ATI only or..?

It was developped by AMD, but installed gfx card should be irrelevant. As I told you yesterday, I use it mostly for viewing the compression level of dds files I want to edit, since photoshop doesn't provide this information... or at least I couldn't find it anywhere :O:

volodya61

03-02-13, 11:08 AM

What is Additional drag coef? :06:

Trevally.

03-02-13, 11:47 AM

Re: PaintDotNet -
I use it the whole time and when you save the quality is reduced to 95%. There is also a slider to put it back to 100% on the same save screen:03:

gap

03-02-13, 11:59 AM

some foreground:
The weapon consisted of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns. Each of the four mounted guns had a separate magazine. The gun was fired by a set of two footpedals, each of which fired two diametrically opposite Flak 38s. The guns could be fired in pairs (diagonally opposite) allowing the other two guns to be reloaded for sustained firing, or simultaneously (in emergencies but not recommended due to ammunition use) in either semi-automatic or fully automatic mode.

gun specs:
combined rate of fire (cyclic):* 1400-1800 rpm
combined rate of fire (practical):** 800 rpm
clip size: 20 rounds (x4)

* the rate of fire that could have been attained by firing the 4 guns simultaneously, without taking into account clips reloading times. I believe that the two figures are relative to fully automatic-semi automatic mode respectively. Note that these times are compatible with typical Flak 38 rates of fire (estimated between 420 and 480 rpm per gun), considering a RoF drop due to guns synchronization.

** the rate of fire that could have been attained by firing the 4 guns simultaneously, taking into account clips reloading times.

as for 2-guns fire, I think that half of the combined cyclic rate of fire can be taken: 700-900 rpm. In this case, the rate of fire drop due to gun reloading, would be reduced, since the reloading of the two inactive guns would start while the other two guns are still firing.

Question #1
In game we cannot simulate the two firing modes (2 guns/4 guns) at the same time. Which one should I pick?

Question #2
2 guns firing mode involved switching the firing pair of gun at each reload. There's no way to simulate it in game: always the same pair of guns would be firing. Is this acceptable?

Question #3
Reloading times, calculated on the base of the above specs (combined fire), are extremely low: 2.6-3.3 seconds depending on the considered cyclic RoF figure. I am inclined to think that the 20 round figure, reported by many sources as clip size for the vireling, is wrong and should be doubled. My arguments:

one of the main improvements of the Flak 38 over Flak 30 was exactly the doubling of their magazines' capacities, from 20 to 40 rounds. Using 20 rounds clips on the vierling (which was a variant of the C/38 conceived for fast firing) would have made little sense;
increasing clip size to 40 rounds, and leaving the other factors unchanged, gives a much more realistic clip reloading time of 5.1-6.7 seconds.

What do you think?

gap

03-02-13, 12:03 PM

What is Additional drag coef? :06:

What it says: the drag coefficient which will be added to sub drag when a gun is fitted aboard :up:

There are 3 coefficients: up/down, left/right, front/rear

Re: PaintDotNet -
I use it the whole time and when you save the quality is reduced to 95%. There is also a slider to put it back to 100% on the same save screen:03:

Good to know. Thank you Trevally :salute:

volodya61

03-02-13, 12:35 PM

I use it the whole time and when you save the quality is reduced to 95%. There is also a slider to put it back to 100% on the same save screen:03:

I know that.. but by some reasons all textures I've tried to save were with reduced quality after..

Question #1

Question #2

Question #3

What do you think?

Do you think it's really important for the gun which will be used in game so small time?
I already changed some parameters (and reload time) in my files, compare them with the stock ones..
I just tried to figure how long it would take for me to reload gun.. :)

Trevally.

03-02-13, 12:53 PM

I know that.. but

Thanks for putting me right

volodya61

03-02-13, 01:12 PM

Thanks for putting me right

Did I said/wrote something wrong? :06:

gap

03-02-13, 01:26 PM

Do you think it's really important for the gun which will be used in game so small time?
I already changed some parameters (and reload time) in my files, compare them with the stock ones..
I just tried to figure how long it would take for me to reload gun.. :)

Volodya, приятель, :D

nothing matters and everything matters: it all depends on the adopted perspective.

Personally, I think that talking about a simulation, any detail deserves the maximum attenction. The original purpose of this project was not only to fix some undoubtedly broken features, but also to tweak armament settings so to mimic as much as possible their real specs. These specs are not only a matter of taste or immersion. Rates of fire, reload times, etc. may and will affect the use made of the Flak guns, and can greatly impact the gameplay. I think we agree on this point and I won't insist on it.

Furthermore, I have spent long hours collecting historical information and converting it in "non-subjective" game settings. Some of my calculations (most of them, I have to admit) are in accordance with stock settings, and some others are not. In any case, I have already made too much work on them, for simply giving them up for no reason.

Indeed, I am ready to discuss them and to revise them if tests demonstrate that they are wrong or that they will make the game unbalanced. Compromises are always possible and often required, but in any case it is my opinion that any "compromise setting" should be based on historical specs/facts, and not vice-versa.

Now the real point is: are we on the same wavelenght? I hope so :up:

keysersoze

03-02-13, 01:57 PM

Question #1
In game we cannot simulate the two firing modes (2 guns/4 guns) at the same time. Which one should I pick?

If multiple firing modes are impossible, I guess I would be inclined to support the most realistic one (2 guns). It would be nice to be able to see all four barrels firing in an "emergency" though...

Question #2
2 guns firing mode involved switching the firing pair of gun at each reload. There's no way to simulate it in game: always the same pair of guns would be firing. Is this acceptable?

If we decide to use the two gun firing mode, I think this would be acceptable.

Question #3
Reloading times, calculated on the base of the above specs (combined fire), are extremely low: 2.6-3.3 seconds depending on the considered cyclic RoF figure. I am inclined to think that the 20 round figure, reported by many sources as clip size for the vireling, is wrong and should be doubled. My arguments:

one of the main improvements of the Flak 38 over Flak 30 was exactly the doubling of their magazines' capacities, from 20 to 40 rounds. Using 20 rounds clips on the vierling (which was a variant of the C/38 conceived for fast firing) would have made little sense;
increasing clip size to 40 rounds, and leaving the other factors unchanged, gives a much more realistic clip reloading time of 5.1-6.7 seconds.

What do you think?

Very interesting. I was also under the impression that the Flakvierlinge used the larger capacity magazine. I'm currently at the library and will double-check some sources for you. But in the meantime, I think your arguments are quite persuasive.:yep:

nothing matters and everything matters: it all depends on the adopted perspective.

Personally, I think that talking about a simulation, any detail deserves the maximum attenction.

:up:

volodya61

03-02-13, 02:14 PM

Now the real point is: are we on the same wavelenght? I hope so :up:

Compare :salute:

I think the best way is:
Make the necessary changes to be close to the historically accurate, because I did not read tons of WWII literature like you are, send me the files and I'll see how the historical accuracy corresponds to the game realities..

Then we could discuss all our experience :up:

gap

03-02-13, 02:24 PM

If multiple firing modes are impossible, I guess I would be inclined to support the most realistic one (2 guns). It would be nice to be able to see all four barrels firing in an "emergency" though...

I can prepare two versions of the same sim file with alternative settings. Unfortunately I cannot join those settings (I could give the gun two alternative controllers, but only one of them would be applied anyway), but using two alternative patches we would be at least able to test the two firing modes, and eventually to pick the one which works better.

The vierling is one of those guns whose settings are going to be most heavily overhauled compared to the stock game. What especially worries me, is how the gun will be going to "sound"

If we decide to use the two gun firing mode, I think this would be acceptable.

:up:
In any case, we would be behind the gun or anyway too busy with our Kaptain tasks for noticing the flaw :03:

Very interesting. I was also under the impression that the Flakvierlinge used the larger capacity magazine. I'm currently at the library and will double-check some sources for you. But in the meantime, I think your arguments are quite persuasive.:yep:

yes, please keysersoze, check it if you can! :salute:

My current sources are Wikipedia, Chris Bishop's Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II and a few unreferenced webpages

gap

03-02-13, 02:25 PM

Compare :salute:

I think the best way is:
Make the necessary changes to be close to the historically accurate, because I did not read tons of WWII literature like you are, send me the files and I'll see how the historical accuracy corresponds to the game realities..

Then we could discuss all our experience :up:

:sign_yeah: :up:

keysersoze

03-02-13, 04:39 PM

gap

03-02-13, 04:43 PM

I continued my calculations on Flakvierlings rates of fire, based on the known specs and on my assuption that the gun had to use 40 rounds magazines:

4 guns "combined" fire:
cyclic rate of fire: 1,400/1,800 rpm (from my sources)
practical rate of fire: 800 rpm (from my sources)
reload time: 5.1/6.7 sec (calculated; varies depending of the cyclic rof considered)

2 guns "sustained" fire:
cyclic rate of fire: 900 rpm (calculated: half of the cyclic rof for combined fire)
practical rate of fire: 700/720 rpm (calculated; varies depending on reload time considered)
reload time:* 0/1.3 sec (calculated; varies depending on cyclic rof and "base" reload time considered

* I hav taken combined fire reload times as base, and I subtracted from them the time for a whole clip to be fired.

This explains why Germans considered combined fire too expensive: the latter allowed for a bigger instant load of fire (1,400/1,800 rpm versus 900 rpm) but, on the other hand, sustained fire ensured a more constant bullet flux (null or very short reloading times) with a modest reduction of the pratcical rof (700/720 rpm versus 800 rpm) :know:

Does it make sense to you?

gap

03-02-13, 05:24 PM

After checking two sources, it seems that the Flakvierlinge typically used 20 round magazines.:hmmm:

Hans Mehl (Naval Guns: 500 Years of Ship and Coastal Artillery) says about the 2 cm C/38 Quad: "The ballistic data of the guns is the same as that of the 2cm weapons previously illustrated. Once again ammunition was fed in 20 round magazines (later also 40 round magazines)" (p. 127).

Mirslaw Skwiot (German Naval Guns, 1939-1945) says they used 20 round magazines but doesn't mention the later use of the 40 round capacity. (p. 381).

It doesn't add up: at the given rates of fire, guncrew would have been forced to reload each 6 seconds, and to do it in 2-3 seconds for all of the 4 guns (!) :hmmm:

so either:

- all the sources we have consulted so far are wrong (which at this point seems improbable);

- or, more likely, the practical rate of fire of 800 rpm is relative to the later 40 rounds magazine, and 20 rounds rates of fire had to be considerably lower.

Do you have any information on rates of fires in your books? In any case, considering that the vierling entered service sometime around '41 and that, according to your information, it wasn't fitted on Uboots before June '43, I would take anyway the 40 rounds figure for game settings. What do you think?

Regarding the sound: I agree it will be very important to get this element right. A quick search failed to turn up any really good audio clips of the Flakvierling firing (there are a few clips of Flakpanzer IVs firing on youtube, but the quality is very bad and is marred by narration and music). On a somewhat unrelated note, I also think the stock depth charge sounds are much too quiet. I've experimented with amplifying the stock clip, but this tends to degrade the quality of the audio

weapons (guns, depth charges, bullets, etc.) sounds are in our todo list. Currently the game got just few sounds which are shared by many guns. Customizing sounds for each gun is possible, so let me know if you find any good sound for the guns featured in game (I can send you a list).

Talking specifically about the Flakvierling, digging on the web, I have found the following sounds:

http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/27/mp3/233428_SOUNDDOGS__li.mp3
http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/27/mp3/233473_SOUNDDOGS__ta.mp3

On the same website there are some more sounds, but they all are very similar if not identical. Though not being excellent, this sound is at least acceptable; nonetheless, I am a bit dubious about using multiple guns sounds in game: if you hear stock gun sounds, they are clips sampling the sound of one single bullet flash. For multiple guns/fast firing guns, the game is probably mixing the same sound several times with an offset corresponding to gun's recoil time. :03:

keysersoze

03-02-13, 07:49 PM

It doesn't add up: at the given rates of fire, guncrew would have been forced to reload each 6 seconds, and to do it in 2-3 seconds for all of the 4 guns (!) :hmmm:

so either:

- all the sources we have consulted so far are wrong (which at this point seems improbable);

- or, more likely, the practical rate of fire of 800 rpm is relative to the later 40 rounds magazine, and 20 rounds rates of fire had to be considerably lower.

Do you have any information on rates of fires in your books? In any case, considering that the vierling entered service sometime around '41 and that, according to your information, it wasn't fitted on Uboots before June '43, I would take anyway the 40 rounds figure for game settings. What do you think?

Now I'm really confused....:hmmm: Mehl gives a theoretical rate of fire of 1800 rpm. Skwiot also gives the 1800 rpm number. However, in the introduction to his section on German light AA guns he says this (I will quote it at length to provide context):

"The most effective solution developed by the German designers was installing four guns in a single mount. This was known as the 2cm Flakvierling 38 and had a theoretical rate of fire of 4 x 150 rounds per minute (!)....Another weak point were the twenty-round magazines, which could be emptied by seven second's firing. This enforced pauses between bursts from individual barrels as the magazines were changed. There were attempts to remedy this using belt-fed ammunition, but this never entered operational service" (p. 349).

This is an enormous discrepancy (600 rpm vs. 1800 rpm). My initial thought is that the 600 rpm number is based off 20 round magazines, since he also mentions that the 2 cm C/38 could (and apparently did) use either size of magazine, although the larger 40 round variety was preferred (p. 394). It's logical to assume that the earliest versions of the Flakvierling, which were being tested with the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in 1940, might have used the smaller magazine. I agree with you that by June 1943, when they finally arrived in large numbers on the U-boats, they probably used the larger magazine.

weapons (guns, depth charges, bullets, etc.) sounds are in our todo list. Currently the game got just few sounds which are shared by many guns. Customizing sounds for each gun is possible, so let me know if you find any good sound for the guns featured in game (I can send you a list).

Talking specifically about the Flakvierling, digging on the web, I have found the following sounds:

http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/27/mp3/233428_SOUNDDOGS__li.mp3
http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/27/mp3/233473_SOUNDDOGS__ta.mp3

On the same website there are some more sounds, but they all are very similar if not identical. Though not being excellent, this sound is at least acceptable; nonetheless, I am a bit dubious about using multiple guns sounds in game: if you hear stock gun sounds, they are clips sampling the sound of one single bullet flash. For multiple guns/fast firing guns, the game is probably mixing the same sound several times with an offset corresponding to gun's recoil time. :03:

I will definitely keep an eye (or an ear) out for good audio clips. I wonder if it would be possible to isolate a single muzzle blast from that clip and then use that as the base sound? Anyway, I assume the sound portion of the mod will come after the rebalancing of the guns, depth charges, etc.

gap

03-02-13, 09:04 PM

Now I'm really confused....:hmmm: Mehl gives a theoretical rate of fire of 1800 rpm. Skwiot also gives the 1800 rpm number. However, in the introduction to his section on German light AA guns he says this (I will quote it at length to provide context):

"The most effective solution developed by the German designers was installing four guns in a single mount. This was known as the 2cm Flakvierling 38 and had a theoretical rate of fire of 4 x 150 rounds per minute (!)....Another weak point were the twenty-round magazines, which could be emptied by seven second's firing. This enforced pauses between bursts from individual barrels as the magazines were changed. There were attempts to remedy this using belt-fed ammunition, but this never entered operational service" (p. 349).

This is an enormous discrepancy (600 rpm vs. 1800 rpm). My initial thought is that the 600 rpm number is based off 20 round magazines, since he also mentions that the 2 cm C/38 could (and apparently did) use either size of magazine, although the larger 40 round variety was preferred (p. 394).

It all makes much more sense to me now! :yeah:

- for a start, the 1,800 rpm combined cyclic rate of fire (compatible with the 420-480 rpm rof reported by other sources for the single C/38) is confirmed. This is obvious, as magazine size can't affect cyclic rate of fire. :up:

- despite the defintion of "theoretical" given by Skwiot, the 600 rpm figure must be relative to the practical rate of fire using 20 rounds clips. Replacing 800 with 600 in my equation gives me a reloading time of 5.3 sec at 1,800 rpm of cyclic rof. This result, on turn, is compatible with the reloading time previously calculated for 40 rounds clips/ 800 rpm practical rof (5.1-6.6). :up:

- the reported clip duration of 7 sec is probably calculated over the practical rate of fire: 4 x 20 rounds x 60 sec / 600 rpm = 8 seconds. This in not exactly the expected 7 seconds, but I coudn't think of a better explaination. Maybe the fact that not all the historians are fond mathematics lovers ccould account for the error :D

It's logical to assume that the earliest versions of the Flakvierling, which were being tested with the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in 1940, might have used the smaller magazine. I agree with you that by June 1943, when they finally arrived in large numbers on the U-boats, they probably used the larger magazine.

:up:

I will definitely keep an eye (or an ear) out for good audio clips. I wonder if it would be possible to isolate a single muzzle blast from that clip and then use that as the base sound?

I have found another 20mm Flak clip (well, actually a youtube video). The gun seems a zwilling to me, but its sound resembles more the one made by a quad Flak :hmm2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyi2dL5ZNcI

Isolating a single sound from original audio clips/footage in often not easy, due to the presence of reverbe and overlapping sounds. In this case, the sound of each detonation starts when the previous one has not yet ceased. Cleaning this sample might be possible, but I cannot guarantee that the result would be acceptable. Using a clean sound (a single shot one), and eventually editing it (adding the typical firing gear noise) is probably preferable.

Anyway, I assume the sound portion of the mod will come after the rebalancing of the guns, depth charges, etc.

Well, it depends. If we find good sounds for the German Flaks, a sound update might be possible in short time. Another forum member, spydar1959, offered to look for some good samples. Apparently he has access to a large database of military historical footage, and he is quite familiar with audio editing. I am currently waiting for his news :03:

keysersoze

03-03-13, 02:37 AM

for a start, the 1,800 rpm combined cyclic rate of fire (compatible with the 420-480 rpm rof reported by other sources for the single C/38) is confirmed. This is obvious, as magazine size can't affect cyclic rate of fire. :up:

Ah, you're quite right. Not sure what I was thinking there.:oops:

despite the defintion of "theoretical" given by Skwiot, the 600 rpm figure must be relative to the practical rate of fire using 20 rounds clips. Replacing 800 with 600 in my equation gives me a reloading time of 5.3 sec at 1,800 rpm of cyclic rof. This result, on turn, is compatible with the reloading time previously calculated for 40 rounds clips/ 800 rpm practical rof (5.1-6.6). :up:

I agree that the 600 rpm rate of fire seems to be practical instead of theoretical. In fact, I initially recorded it as "practical?" when making some changes to that historical specs. document.

the reported clip duration of 7 sec is probably calculated over the practical rate of fire: 4 x 20 rounds x 60 sec / 600 rpm = 8 seconds. This in not exactly the expected 7 seconds, but I coudn't think of a better explaination. Maybe the fact that not all the historians are fond mathematics lovers ccould account for the error :D

Once again, your logic is impeccable, and I believe you've solved the issue:salute:. And you're quite right about historians not liking numbers, unless they happen to be dates with interesting historical events attached.:D

I have found another 20mm Flak clip (well, actually a youtube video). The gun seems a zwilling to me, but its sound resembles more the one made by a quad Flak :hmm2:

Yeah, that looked like a C/38 Zwilling, but the sound quality was pretty decent.

Well, it depends. If we find good sounds for the German Flaks, a sound update might be possible in short time. Another forum member, spydar1959, offered to look for some good samples. Apparently he has access to a large database of military historical footage, and he is quite familiar with audio editing. I am currently waiting for his news :03:

Excellent!:up: As I said, I will gather any promising audio clips I happen to stumble across.

I almost hesitate to say this, since I normally always favor historical accuracy above all else, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary to collect a perfect audio sample of each particular gun, if that is even possible. The reason is simple: there are very few recordings that truly capture the experience of being next to a weapon of that size while it is firing. My uncle is a bit of a collector of historical firearms, so I grew up target shooting many old military rifles. Even at those relatively small calibers, the initial crack and the subsequent long rumble of something like an 8mm Mauser is very loud if heard without ear protection. Without knowing anything about the technical limitation of audio recording, all I can say is that there aren't many recordings in games/sims, movies, or documentaries that feel like the real thing.

I guess my point is that it's more important for the sounds to be accurate relative to each other, rather than to be accurate in an absolute sense. I hope that made a little bit of sense...

gap

03-03-13, 06:34 AM

Ah, you're quite right. Not sure what I was thinking there.:oops:

I agree that the 600 rpm rate of fire seems to be practical instead of theoretical. In fact, I initially recorded it as "practical?" when making some changes to that historical specs. document.

Well, when I started collecting guns specifications for this mod, I was as confused as you. Very often the information provided by various sources is lacking or contradictory. In the worst cases, the same source can state a fact, and contradict it a few rows later. :doh:
In many cases, available data have to be taken with a pinch of salt, and with a good dose of imagination :D

In general, I think that NavWeaps (http://www.navweaps.com/) is a good online resource. It resumes mostly the information reported by Capbell's Naval Weapons of World War 2, often completing and comparing it with the specs available from various other sources. :up:

Once again, your logic is impeccable, and I believe you've solved the issue:salute:. And you're quite right about historians not liking numbers, unless they happen to be dates with interesting historical events attached.:D

...yes, dates and statistics :03:

Yeah, that looked like a C/38 Zwilling, but the sound quality was pretty decent.

Okay, I have already captured its audio. Let's see what we can do with it :up:

P.S: digging in sounddogs I have found a few more generic sounds, which are cool because they include the sound of the falling casing:

http://www.sounddogs.com/results.asp?CategoryID=1027&SubcategoryID=142&Type=1

Excellent!:up: As I said, I will gather any promising audio clips I happen to stumble across.

Thank you, I really appreciate yor help :)

I almost hesitate to say this, since I normally always favor historical accuracy above all else, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary to collect a perfect audio sample of each particular gun, if that is even possible. The reason is simple: there are very few recordings that truly capture the experience of being next to a weapon of that size while it is firing. My uncle is a bit of a collector of historical firearms, so I grew up target shooting many old military rifles. Even at those relatively small calibers, the initial crack and the subsequent long rumble of something like an 8mm Mauser is very loud if heard without ear protection. Without knowing anything about the technical limitation of audio recording, all I can say is that there aren't many recordings in games/sims, movies, or documentaries that feel like the real thing.

I guess my point is that it's more important for the sounds to be accurate relative to each other, rather than to be accurate in an absolute sense. I hope that made a little bit of sense...

I see what you mean. At this moment I am just looking for 4-5 sounds:
1-2 sounds for 20mm Flaks (if possible, one for single guns and one for multiple guns, with the additional crank/firing gear noise)
1-2 sounds for 37mm Flaks (if possible, one for the SKC30 with the additional gun loading noise and one for the M42)
1 for deckguns.

I don't pretend them to sound like the real thing, because I don't have any idea of their real sound, but I would be satisfied if they vaguely resembled the sounds heard on war movies or on historical footage, when available. :03:

keysersoze

03-03-13, 11:04 AM

I see what you mean. At this moment I am just looking for 4-5 sounds:
1-2 sounds for 20mm Flaks (if possible, one for single guns and one for multiple guns, with the additional crank/firing gear noise)
1-2 sounds for 37mm Flaks (if possible, one for the SKC30 with the additional gun loading noise and one for the M42)
1 for deckguns.

I don't pretend them to sound like the real thing, because I don't have any idea of their real sound, but I would be satisfied if they vaguely resembled the sounds heard on war movies or on historical footage, when available. :03:

Sounds good to me. :yeah: I have never experienced firing anything as large as a 20mm or a 37mm, so I'm no expert on Flak sounds :o. I guess what I was trying to say is that we can be open to the possibility of using non-WWII and even non-German sound clips. Obviously, if we can find a perfect clip of a C/38 firing, then we should use it. But if we are forced to choose between an old and badly distorted clip of a C/38 and a high quality clip of, for example, an American or British 20mm firing, it would be okay to use the American or British clip. The important thing is that the rhythm of the gun firing sounds similar to documentary clips of the German flak guns

keysersoze

03-06-13, 12:28 AM

I've been collecting information about escorts recently, most of it dealing with sensors and depth charges. I have a couple questions:

First, is it possible to mod destroyer behavior to get them to drop depth charges in patterns? I have some good information about the procedure for dropping five, ten, and fourteen depth charge patterns using stern rails and K-guns. Is this worth looking into, or is destroyer behavior hardcoded?

Second, does the game treat all depth charges as universally the same, or is it possible to have different types of charges, each with a different kill radius, sink time, and depth setting? This would be especially important for the implementation of depth charge patterns, since the ten and fourteen charge patterns used a combination of regular Mk. VII DCs (sink rate of 3 m/sec) and Mk. VII Heavy DCs (sink rate of 5.1 m/sec) to create a three dimensional diamond pattern for the largest possible kill radius.

gap

03-06-13, 09:04 AM

I've been collecting information about escorts recently, most of it dealing with sensors and depth charges. I have a couple questions:

Sounds promising :up:

I have a couple questions:

First, is it possible to mod destroyer behavior to get them to drop depth charges in patterns? I have some good information about the procedure for dropping five, ten, and fourteen depth charge patterns using stern rails and K-guns. Is this worth looking into, or is destroyer behavior hardcoded?

TDW has already managed implementing group ASW strategies into his IRAI. I suggest you to address the findings of your research directly to him, in the IRAI thread. Be prepared to long reply waiting times though: these days TDW is not always online, and he is mostly focusing on the GR2 Editor.

Talking about WWII ASW tactics, have you ever seen this nice educational flash game by BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/launch_gms_battle_atlantic.shtml

Second, does the game treat all depth charges as universally the same, or is it possible to have different types of charges, each with a different kill radius, sink time, and depth setting? This would be especially important for the implementation of depth charge patterns, since the ten and fourteen charge patterns used a combination of regular Mk. VII DCs (sink rate of 3 m/sec) and Mk. VII Heavy DCs (sink rate of 5.1 m/sec) to create a three dimensional diamond pattern for the largest possible kill radius.

There are 2 types of depth charges in game: 'Standard' (which I suppose are designed to represent Mk VII dc's) and 'Mk9'.
Each can be given the following properties:

fall_speed (the under water falling speed [m/s])
detonate_depth (the detonating depth [m])
depth_precision (the depth sensor precision [m])
explosion_range (the explosion range [m])
explosion_impulse (the explosion impulse [t*m/s]

+ the usual damage properties, seen also in other weapons:

MinEF (the min hit points this ammunition worths)
MaxEF (the max hit points this ammunition worths)
AP (the armor level it penetrates)
MinRadius (the minimum radius of splash damage. The ammunition takes all its hitpoints util this distance)
MaxRadius (the maximum radius of splash damage. The ammunition takes no hitpoints beyond this distance. If 0 no splash)

If, needed, I think we can add new depth charge types, but there could be some technical limitation, as I never actually tried to do it.

Each DC rack/DC thrower is set in game to drop only one type of depth charge (either the standard ones or the MK9); multiple DC types assigned to the same trower are theoretically possible, but not used in stock game. I ignore if, in case of multiple DC type outfits, the type of depth charge currently used by each unit can be controlled through IRAI scripting. We should ask TDW on it :salute:

keysersoze

03-06-13, 05:45 PM

TDW has already managed implementing group ASW strategies into his IRAI. I suggest you to address the findings of your research directly to him, in the IRAI thread. Be prepared to long reply waiting times though: these days TDW is not always online, and he is mostly focusing on the GR2 Editor.

Okay, I'll post in the IRAI thread.

Talking about WWII ASW tactics, have you ever seen this nice educational flash game by BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/launch_gms_battle_atlantic.shtml

Thanks for the link. :salute: I had not seen that flash game before. It's a nice way to visualize some of the tactics I've been reading about.

There are 2 types of depth charges in game: 'Standard' (which I suppose are designed to represent Mk VII dc's) and 'Mk9'.
Each can be given the following properties:

fall_speed (the under water falling speed [m/s])
detonate_depth (the detonating depth [m])
depth_precision (the depth sensor precision [m])
explosion_range (the explosion range [m])
explosion_impulse (the explosion impulse [t*m/s]

+ the usual damage properties, seen also in other weapons:

MinEF (the min hit points this ammunition worths)
MaxEF (the max hit points this ammunition worths)
AP (the armor level it penetrates)
MinRadius (the minimum radius of splash damage. The ammunition takes all its hitpoints util this distance)
MaxRadius (the maximum radius of splash damage. The ammunition takes no hitpoints beyond this distance. If 0 no splash)

Good to know all this stuff is moddable. Those should be the most important parameters for altering depth charge specifications. Forgive the noob question, but which file controls these properties? I don't really have any modding skills, but I thought it would be interesting do some limited experimentation.

If, needed, I think we can add new depth charge types, but there could be some technical limitation, as I never actually tried to do it.

Great to hear this is at least a possibility! It would be nice to have both the Mk. VII and the Mk. VII Heavy at a minimum. Although it might be more trouble than it's worth since it was only used rarely in the war, it would be interesting to see a Mk. X in the game. It has over 900 kg of explosion charge, compared to the 140 kg of a Mk. VII. Apparently, it had nearly a 50% kill rate when used against U-boats :o

gap

03-06-13, 06:23 PM

Good to know all this stuff is moddable. Those should be the most important parameters for altering depth charge specifications. Forgive the noob question, but which file controls these properties? I don't really have any modding skills, but I thought it would be interesting do some limited experimentation.

The properties I have described in my previous post are part of the amun_DepthCharge and AmmoDamageInfo controllers, respectively found in DC_barrels.sim and DC_barrels.zon files (path: data\Library). In order to edit them, you need to open the DC_barrels.GR2 file first. Here is the step by step procedure:

- If you haven't ever messed with Goblin Editor, navigate to SH5's main folder, locate GoblinEditorApp.exe, right click on it, select the Compatibility tab and check 'Disable visual themes'. This will get rid of flickering selection boxes when you run the application.

- Run Goblin Editor, again, if it is the first time you use it, you should make it to point to the correct SH5 installation folder. Have a glance to this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1328039&postcount=1) tutorial for more details on how to do it.

- Now Goblin is ready for use: from the File menu, select Open, and open the DC_barrels.GR2 file. In the preview window you should see the two DC barrels featured in game.

- From the File menu, select Merge, and merge DC_barrels.sim into the project.

- Merge similarly the DC_barrels.zon file.

- At this time, both DC_barrels.sim and DC_barrels.zon should be diplayed in the Project Tree vindow. Expand them for seeing their controllers. Each DC type got its own controllers. Double click on any of them, and select then the controller whose properties you want to edit from the 'Edit Behavior' window.

- When you have done with the changes, close the 'Edit Behavior' window. You will notice that DC_barrels.sim and/or DC_barrels.zon controllers listing in 'Project Tree' window have become red, meaning that there are unsaved changes to these files. Right click on the red file names, and select 'Save file'. That's all :up:

Great to hear this is at least a possibility! It would be nice to have both the Mk. VII and the Mk. VII Heavy at a minimum. Although it might be more trouble than it's worth since it was only used rarely in the war, it would be interesting to see a Mk. X in the game. It has over 900 kg of explosion charge, compared to the 140 kg of a Mk. VII. Apparently, it had nearly a 50% kill rate when used against U-boats :o

Let's hope that we can get them in game. Fingers crossed :yeah:

keysersoze

03-06-13, 06:52 PM

The properties I have described in my previous post are part of the amun_DepthCharge and AmmoDamageInfo controllers, respectively found in DC_barrels.sim and DC_barrels.zon files (path: data\Library). In order to edit them, you need to open the DC_barrels.GR2 file first. Here is the step by step procedure:

- If you haven't ever messed with Goblin Editor, navigate to SH5's main folder, locate GoblinEditorApp.exe, right click on it, select the Compatibility tab and check 'Disable visual themes'. This will get rid of flickering selection boxes when you run the application.

- Run Goblin Editor, again, if it is the first time you use it, you should make it to point to the correct SH5 installation folder. Have a glance to this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1328039&postcount=1) tutorial for more details on how to do it.

- Now Goblin is ready for use: from the File menu, select Open, and open the DC_barrels.GR2 file. In the preview window you should see the two DC barrels featured in game.

- From the File menu, select Merge, and merge DC_barrels.sim into the project.

- Merge similarly the DC_barrels.zon file.

- At this time, both DC_barrels.sim and DC_barrels.zon should be diplayed in the Project Tree vindow. Expand them for seeing their controllers. Each DC type got its own controllers. Double click on any of them, and select then the controller whose properties you want to edit from the 'Edit Behavior' window.

- When you have done with the changes, close the 'Edit Behavior' window. You will notice that DC_barrels.sim and/or DC_barrels.zon controllers listing in 'Project Tree' window have become red, meaning that there are unsaved changes to these files. Right click on the red file names, and select 'Save file'. That's all :up:

Thanks for the excellent step-by-step guide :yeah: I'll give this a try as soon as I get some free time.

gap

03-06-13, 07:23 PM

Thanks for the excellent step-by-step guide :yeah: I'll give this a try as soon as I get some free time.

My pleasure... Popeye! :D
Keep us informed on any progress, please :up:

gap

03-06-13, 07:40 PM

keysersoze

03-06-13, 08:57 PM

@ keysersoze

I have been looking into historical specifications document for guns elevation/training rates, and I have noticed that for 37mm Flaks you reported speed of 3 and 4 deg/s respectively. I understand that these guns had no motorized drive gear and that they had to be aimed manually, but the above figures seem a bit too low to me. What is your source for them? Can you confirm that there was no mistyping? :hmm2:

:hmm2: That is quite slow. Unfortunately, I don't have the sources at hand right now. I will probably be in the library tomorrow afternoon and will check them then.

On a related note, I've been going back through the sources and adding references for all the information contained in that document. When I started the project, I didn't realize there would be so many discrepancies in the sources. When I am done with the next version (soon, I hope), it should be much easier to cross-reference data, identify problems, and come to a reasonable consensus.

On this topic, I am also looking for likely elev/train rates of the 20mm guns, including the vierling. Unfortunately it is very hard to find this kind of information :-?

I will check for these as well, but I don't think they were included in the material I read. It's frustrating when an author provides information like elevation/training speed for one gun, but not for others. :/\\!!

gap

03-06-13, 09:46 PM

:hmm2: That is quite slow. Unfortunately, I don't have the sources at hand right now. I will probably be in the library tomorrow afternoon and will check them then.

Okay, in the meanwhile I have elaborated some draft settings:

single and double 20mm Flaks train rate: I think that 20mm pedestal guns were trained directly by the gunner by means of their backrests. Nothing would have limited their training speed but their weight and impediment. A figure of 60 deg/sec seems reasonable to me, maybe a bit lesser for the C/38 twin due to the extra weight and inpediment given by its shield (50 deg/s).

single and double 20mm Flaks C/30 elevation rate: for what I can see from their SH5 models and from some histrorical pictures, these guns had to be elevated by means of an handwheel which would have limited their elevation rate. I am proposing a speed of 10 deg/s. Is it too low?

single and double 20mm Flaks C/38 elevation rate: acccording to German 20mm Flak in World War II (http://www.scribd.com/doc/44199289/German-20mm-Flak-in-WWII-From-www-jgokey-com) by Werner Müller:
"...[C/38's] rates of traverse and elevation were improved [over Flak C/30], through the addition of an overdrive to each mechanism. One turn of the elevation handwheel raised the barrel 4 degrees, 12 degrees in overdrive...". This quote seems to suggest that C/38 elevation (and traverse) rates could have been 3 times faster than C/30 ones. This is probably referred to Wehrmacht models, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply as well to the naval mountings. By assuming it, I propose a figure of 30 deg/sec, which by the way is in accordance with the Flak C/38 twin elevation rate reported into your document.

Flakvierling's train and elevation rates: 30 deg/sec for both of them.

Flak 37 mm train and elevation rates: waiting for your answers :03:

On a related note, I've been going back through the sources and adding references for all the information contained in that document. When I started the project, I didn't realize there would be so many discrepancies in the sources. When I am done with the next version (soon, I hope), it should be much easier to cross-reference data, identify problems, and come to a reasonable consensus.

Can't wait for it :yeah:

I will check for these as well, but I don't think they were included in the material I read. It's frustrating when an author provides information like elevation/training speed for one gun, but not for others. :/\\!!

Let's be positive: we should be glad enough that he reported the desired information for at least one gun :D

keysersoze

03-06-13, 10:32 PM

Okay, in the meanwhile I have elaborated some draft settings:

single and double 20mm Flaks train rate: I think that 20mm pedestal guns were trained directly by the gunner by means of their backrests. Nothing would have limited their training speed but their weight and impediment. A figure of 60 deg/sec seems reasonable to me, maybe a bit lesser for the C/38 twin due to the extra weight and inpediment given by its shield (50 deg/s).

:up:

single and double 20mm Flaks C/30 elevation rate: for what I can see from their SH5 models and from some histrorical pictures, these guns had to be elevated by means of an handwheel which would have limited their elevation rate. I am proposing a speed of 10 deg/s. Is it too low?

See below.

single and double 20mm Flaks C/38 elevation rate: acccording to German 20mm Flak in World War II (http://www.scribd.com/doc/44199289/German-20mm-Flak-in-WWII-From-www-jgokey-com) by Werner Müller:
"...[C/38's] rates of traverse and elevation were improved [over Flak C/30], through the addition of an overdrive to each mechanism. One turn of the elevation handwheel raised the barrel 4 degrees, 12 degrees in overdrive...". This quote seems to suggest that C/38 elevation (and traverse) rates could have been 3 times faster than C/30 ones. This is probably referred to Wehrmacht models, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply as well to the naval mountings. By assuming it, I propose a figure of 30 deg/sec, which by the way is in accordance with the Flak C/38 twin elevation rate reported into your document.

The elevation numbers for the C/30 and C/38 seem reasonable to me. Here's one more piece of information I discovered while reviewing Miroslaw Skwiot's German Naval Guns: 1939-1945 yesterday: "[the 20mm C/30] took 29-30 turns of the handwheel to move the column from its lowest to its highest position" (p. 380). If this is accurate, it would mean the C/30's elevation rate would be approximately 3.2-3.3 deg/turn, assuming the depression/elevation of -11/+85 degrees is accurate. Now if we only knew how long it took to crank the handwheel one time...

Flakvierling's train and elevation rates: 30 deg/sec for both of them.

:up:

Let's be positive: we should be glad enough that he reported the desired information for at least one gun :D

That's true. Many authors have probably run into the same problems we have with conflicting and incomplete sources.

gap

03-07-13, 10:34 AM

The elevation numbers for the C/30 and C/38 seem reasonable to me. Here's one more piece of information I discovered while reviewing Miroslaw Skwiot's German Naval Guns: 1939-1945 yesterday: "[the 20mm C/30] took 29-30 turns of the handwheel to move the column from its lowest to its highest position" (p. 380). If this is accurate, it would mean the C/30's elevation rate would be approximately 3.2-3.3 deg/turn, assuming the depression/elevation of -11/+85 degrees is accurate.

Thank you for the helpful information :up:
Since we are at it, can you look if your library can help us with deckgun's traverse/elevation rates? :03:

Now if we only knew how long it took to crank the handwheel one time...

This is what I wish to know, though I guess that this time would have depended on many factors, including crew fatigue, gun conditions, etc.

For my calculations I have supposed that 5 complete turns of the elevation handwheel would have taken 2 seconds, which may appear a bit too much considering the harsh operational condition of Atlantic boats. On the other hand, the resulting speed of 10 deg/s (8-8.3 considering your calculations) seems slow enough to me.

Imo, reducing it further would render C/30 Flaks almost useless, but indeed the final decision will be taken after a serious test in game. Volodya, are you there, what do you think? :D

BTW: stock traininig/elevation rate settings for light Flak guns are respectively 360 and 180 degrees per second :o :O:

volodya61

03-07-13, 11:32 AM

On the other hand, the resulting speed of 10 deg/s (8-8.3 considering your calculations) seems slow enough to me.

Imo, reducing it further would render C/30 Flaks almost useless, but indeed the final decision will be taken after a serious test in game. Volodya, are you there, what do you think? :D

Yes Gabriele, I'm still here.. :03:
In my experience, decrease in the accuracy of guns occurs only when elevation speed less than 6-7 deg/sec.. if elevation speed is lower than 4 deg/sec then hit the target becomes impossible.. this is only true for the AA-guns and planes (as a target).. for deck guns all slightly different..

gap

03-07-13, 11:58 AM

Yes Gabriele, I'm still here.. :03:
In my experience, decrease in the accuracy of guns occurs only when elevation speed less than 6-7 deg/sec.. if elevation speed is lower than 4 deg/sec then hit the target becomes impossible.. this is only true for the AA-guns and planes (as a target).. for deck guns all slightly different..

So, elevation rates of 30-10 deg/sec are still too accurate? The window between 7 and 4 deg/sec is very narrow :-?

volodya61

03-07-13, 01:57 PM

So, elevation rates of 30-10 deg/sec are still too accurate? The window between 7 and 4 deg/sec is very narrow :-?

Yes, at least to light Flaks.. heavy Flaks I didn't checked yet..

EDIT: I mentioned earlier, we can't adjust the accuracy using this setting (trav/elev speed)..

gap

03-07-13, 03:29 PM

EDIT: I mentioned earlier, we can't adjust the accuracy using this setting (trav/elev speed)..

Yep, you had said that only heavily reduced elevation speeds would have affected aiming accuracy... but you didn't say how much heavily...

Since the stock setting is 180 deg/s, I thought we had still some margin, but lol 6 deg/s is 30 times slower :doh:

By the way, have you checked yet if the effect of tolerance factors gets more obvious at reduced trav/elev rates? :hmm2:

EDIT: could you have imagined when we started working on the flaks, that reducing their accuracy would have been an harder task than increasing it :rotfl2:

keysersoze

03-07-13, 03:58 PM

@ keysersoze
I have been looking into historical specifications document for guns elevation/training rates, and I have noticed that for 37mm Flaks you reported speed of 3 and 4 deg/s respectively. I understand that these guns had no motorized drive gear and that they had to be aimed manually, but the above figures seem a bit too low to me. What is your source for them? Can you confirm that there was no mistyping? :hmm2:

I checked Miroslaw Skwiot's book today (the most helpful source on German Flak) and can find no reference to the 3 and 4 deg/sec numbers. Unfortunately, my other source seems to have been checked out by someone else. Since those numbers are almost absurdly slow, I think we can treat them as a mistyping, barring further evidence to the contrary. Sorry for the confusion :oops:

One more question: how does the game handle escort sensors? Are there individual radar and asdic models that can be upgraded over the course of the war, similar to how we upgrade our U-boat? I've noticed in the mission editor that there are settings for early, middle, and late equipment, but I wasn't sure how this translated into sensor settings.

volodya61

03-07-13, 04:12 PM

Yep, you had said that only heavily reduced elevation speeds would have affected aiming accuracy... but you didn't say how much heavily...

When I said 'heavily' perhaps I meant 'Heavily' :D

By the way, have you checked yet if the effect of tolerance factors gets more obvious at reduced trav/elev rates? :hmm2:

Nothing.. no changes..

EDIT: could you have imagined when we started working on the flaks, that reducing their accuracy would have been an harder task than increasing it :rotfl2:

I suspected it :cool: :rotfl2:

keysersoze

03-07-13, 04:34 PM

gap

03-07-13, 06:51 PM

Okay, I think I just discovered the source of the 3 and 4 deg/sec mystery. It turns out that is the manual training and elevation speed for the 3.7 cm SK C/30 in the Dopp. C/30 mount:

"The practical rate of fire was determined in practice by the efficiency of the crew, a well-trained section being able to achieve thirty rounds per minute per barrel. The twin Dopp. L C/30 mount was manually trained and elevated. Elevation speed was 3 deg/sec and training speed was 4 deg/sec" (Skwiot, 317)

Note that this is not the typical U-boat installation, which used the Ubts. C/30 or the Ubts. C/39 mounts, although it is the same type of gun. The twin 3.7 cm in Dopp. L C/30 was installed mainly on the Nürnberg class light cruisers and small warships, and Skwiot says that one of its principal problems was a slow speed of traverse (p. 315).

Same gun, different mount (wet single mount vs. double mount) :hmmm:

When he specifically discusses the U-boat version (3.7 cm SK C/30 U), he says this: "The early battles with Allied convoys had shown that the gun's rate of fire was insufficient, and also that the rates of training and elevation were too slow. Therefore, the C/30 U was soon replaced by the newer 3.7 cm Flak M42" (Skwiot, 333)

"The early battles with Allied convoys...", he says. This is curious and leads me to suspect that (due to its slow training speed) the gun was used more in the surface-to-surface role than as an AA gun. :hmm2:

So, the U-boat version had similar problems with traverse speed, although I'm not sure how similar these figures would have been to the twin 3.7 in the Dopp. L C/30 mount. He does not give training or elevation numbers for the U-boat version of the SK C/30 U or the M42, but it's logical to assume from the above quote that the M42 had better numbers than the SK C/30 U.

What do you make of this?

Yes, your conclusions seem convincing to me. We should try to give the SK C/30 trav/elev rates as similar as possible to the ones reported by Skwiot for the dopp mount. By saying "as much as possible" I mean that some adjustments will be probably needed to make the gun not totally useless (see Volodya's remarks on elevation rates and Flaks aiming accuracy).

Talking about the same gun, navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-83_skc30.htm) reports:

"In addition to the normal train and elevation axes, the mounting for this weapon had a third axis which stabilized the the gun carriage when the ship rolled or pitched. This allowed the gun to track an airplane without interference from the motion of the ship. However, problems with this mounting led to its abandonment in subsequent designs for 3.7 cm guns."

I wish we had ways to simulate it in game; it seems that all the guns are stabilized by default, and any attempt we have made so far to destibilize them, has failed. :-?

As for the M42, yes, we will give it better numbers, but how much better? :hmmm:

EDIT: Here is the information you requested for the deck guns, again according to Skwiot:

10.5 cm Ubts. L C/32 U - the first version for U-boats
max. training speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
max. elevation speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
training arc = 360 deg
depression/elevation = -10 deg/+35 deg

10.5 cm Ubts. L C/36 U - fitted on later Type IXs and Type Xs
max. training speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
max. elevation speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
training arc = 360 deg
depression/elevation = -10 deg/+30 deg

8.8 cm SK C/35 in Ubts. L C/35 mount - designed for Type VIIs
max. training speed (manual) = 1.5 deg/sec
max. elevation speed (manual) = 1.5 deg/sec
training arc = 360 deg
depression/elevation = -10 deg/+30 deg

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for :yeah:

The charts for the 10.5 cm guns are on p. 204. The chart for the 8.8 cm can be found on p. 258. It's interesting that the 8.8 cm (2425 kg) has only half the training/elevation speed of the 10.5 cm (4900 kg).

Yes, and the fact that the 10.5 cm guns fitted with minor adjustement aboard Type VIIC U-boats were dating back to the WWI era, makes it even more interesting :06:

One more question: how does the game handle escort sensors? Are there individual radar and asdic models that can be upgraded over the course of the war, similar to how we upgrade our U-boat? I've noticed in the mission editor that there are settings for early, middle, and late equipment, but I wasn't sure how this translated into sensor settings.

yes, each unit got its .sns file where sensors used at various stages of the war are set. The editable settings are: Start/EndDate, NodeName (the exact point of the unit where the sensor gets linked), and LinkName (the name of the sensor).
Sns files are editable in notepad. Sensors featured in game are found in data\Library\AI_Sensors.GR2. Merge the file with its sim file for editing its specs. As with depth charges, I think we can add to the game as many new sensors as we want. :up:

When I said 'heavily' perhaps I meant 'Heavily' :D

You should have said "much more than heavily" :O: :haha:

Nothing.. no changes..

:nope:

I suspected it :cool: :rotfl2:

Maybe I relied too much on those tolerance settings, but I am still convinced that they have to be there for a reason :hmmm:

keysersoze

03-07-13, 10:04 PM

"The early battles with Allied convoys...", he says. This is curious and leads me to suspect that (due to its slow training speed) the gun was used more in the surface-to-surface role than as an AA gun. :hmm2:

That is an interesting statement. After some more digging, it seems the 3.7 cm SK C/30 was seen primarily as an anti-aircraft weapon, at least until wartime experience exposed its flaws. Every source I have read always mentions it in the context of improved AA defense. Nevertheless, the following quote indicates that BdU realized it had offensive capability as a surface weapon and considered it as a replacement for the deck gun:

"From 27 April 1943, the removal of the 8.8 cm gun was authorized, because there were very few opportunites to use it and, furthermore, the necessity was borne in mind for balance in the weight-momentum and height-momentum. Only the Mediterranean and Polar boats were allowed to keep these guns, if specially applied for. Some large U-boat retained their 10.5 cm gun, or exchanged it for another 3.7 cm quick-firing C/30U, the position of which, abaft of the bridge, had to make way for the new 'winter garden.'" (Rössler, 188)

Talking about the same gun, navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-83_skc30.htm) reports:

"In addition to the normal train and elevation axes, the mounting for this weapon had a third axis which stabilized the the gun carriage when the ship rolled or pitched. This allowed the gun to track an airplane without interference from the motion of the ship. However, problems with this mounting led to its abandonment in subsequent designs for 3.7 cm guns."

I wish we had ways to simulate it in game; it seems that all the guns are stabilized by default, and any attempt we have made so far to destibilize them, has failed. :-?

Stability would be a nice addition to the game. Let me know if you find a way to implement it, as the pitch angle tolerances for some of these guns are given by Skwiot.

As for the M42, yes, we will give it better numbers, but how much better? :hmmm:

After looking for a way to compare the relative training rate between a single and doubled version of the same gun, I found this:

Single 10.5 cm
training speed (manual) = 3 deg/sec
elevation speed (manual = 3 deg/sec

Twin 10.5 cm
training speed (manual) = 1.5 deg/sec
elevation speed (manual) = 1.75 deg/sec

Of course, the 10.5 cm is a much bigger gun than a 3.7 cm, but this at least gives us a metric for comparison: the twin has 50% of the single's training speed and 58.3% of its elevation speed. If we apply these numbers to the single 3.7 cm, we get:

3.7 cm (hypothetical)
elevation speed = 5.15 deg/sec
training speed = 8 deg/sec

Incidentally, these numbers are very close to the the 6-7 deg/sec figures that Volodya reported as being the bare minimum required for AA defense. Since the 3.7 cm was hampered by poor training speeds in real life, this might actually be a realistic way to simulate the gun's shortcomings. I can only guess at the improvements in the M42, but, for the sake of starting a conversation, how about a 25% increase:

M42 (hypothetical)
elevation speed = 6.43 deg/sec
training speed = 10 deg/sec

This is only a rough estimate, but at least it's a place to start. What do you think? @Volodya: in your experience, would these numbers be too slow? I think the trick would be to make the training speeds for the 3.7mm too slow to be really effective (as is historical), but not so slow as to be totally worthless :hmmm:

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for :yeah:

Glad to be of service :salute:

yes, each unit got its .sns file where sensors used at various stages of the war are set. The editable settings are: Start/EndDate, NodeName (the exact point of the unit where the sensor gets linked), and LinkName (the name of the sensor).
Sns files are editable in notepad. Sensors featured in game are found in data\Library\AI_Sensors.GR2. Merge the file with its sim file for editing its specs. As with depth charges, I think we can add to the game as many new sensors as we want. :up:

Awesome! :yeah: I will continue gathering everything I can find about escort radar and asdic.

volodya61

03-08-13, 07:49 AM

You should have said "much more than heavily" :O: :haha:

Well, next time I'll try to report more specifically.. :haha:

Maybe I relied too much on those tolerance settings, but I am still convinced that they have to be there for a reason :hmmm:

Yes, me to.. but by some weird reason they unwilling to work.. :nope:

@Volodya: in your experience, would these numbers be too slow? I think the trick would be to make the training speeds for the 3.7mm too slow to be really effective (as is historical), but not so slow as to be totally worthless :hmmm:

The best way I have suggested earlier: you and Gabriele are looking for historical data (because very few needed resources in Russian), I have to adapt this data to the realities of the game.. :up:

gap

03-08-13, 10:17 AM

That is an interesting statement. After some more digging, it seems the 3.7 cm SK C/30 was seen primarily as an anti-aircraft weapon, at least until wartime experience exposed its flaws. Every source I have read always mentions it in the context of improved AA defense. Nevertheless, the following quote indicates that BdU realized it had offensive capability as a surface weapon and considered it as a replacement for the deck gun:

"From 27 April 1943, the removal of the 8.8 cm gun was authorized, because there were very few opportunites to use it and, furthermore, the necessity was borne in mind for balance in the weight-momentum and height-momentum. Only the Mediterranean and Polar boats were allowed to keep these guns, if specially applied for. Some large U-boat retained their 10.5 cm gun, or exchanged it for another 3.7 cm quick-firing C/30U, the position of which, abaft of the bridge, had to make way for the new 'winter garden.'" (Rössler, 188)

Further confirmation of our suspects comes from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_SK_C/30):

"The SK C/30U gun was modified for use by submarines. All mountings were suitable for use against both air and sea targets."

After a second thought, an explaination to this dp usage, uncommon for guns of this caliber, comes from its very high muzzle velocity and fairly long range, respectively 1,000 m/sec and 8,500 m according to both Wikipedia and navalweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-83_skc30.htm). Oddly, there is disaccordance among the two sources about the elevation angle at which the maximum range was obtained; 37.5 deg according to Wikipedia (this figure is also confirmed by your "Historical Specifications" document) and 45 deg according to navalweaps (which is in line with the maximum range elevation angle reported by various sources for most other guns). :hmm2:

Stability would be a nice addition to the game. Let me know if you find a way to implement it, as the pitch angle tolerances for some of these guns are given by Skwiot.

Yes please, send them my way. We still don't know how/if the tolerance factors get actually applied in game, but setting them won't harm anyway :up:

After looking for a way to compare the relative training rate between a single and doubled version of the same gun, I found this:

...

3.7 cm (hypothetical)
elevation speed = 5.15 deg/sec
training speed = 8 deg/sec

Incidentally, these numbers are very close to the the 6-7 deg/sec figures that Volodya reported as being the bare minimum required for AA defense. Since the 3.7 cm was hampered by poor training speeds in real life, this might actually be a realistic way to simulate the gun's shortcomings. I can only guess at the improvements in the M42, but, for the sake of starting a conversation, how about a 25% increase:

M42 (hypothetical)
elevation speed = 6.43 deg/sec
training speed = 10 deg/sec

This is only a rough estimate, but at least it's a place to start. What do you think?

Your numbers seem convincing to me. Peraphs I would increase a bit more M42 tracking rates, but in absence of more precise information, I think the final settings will be decided by Volodya on the base of his tests.

Before testing starts, I would like to poit you to another piece of information found again on Wikipedia:

"The Ubts LC/39 submarine mount used the SK C/30U gun. It was a simple pedestal mount with a two-man crew, one of whom trained the gun with the shoulder stirrup; the other used gears to elevate the gun."

Evidently, this is not the handwheel trained mount represented in game (Ubts. LC/30?). Now the point is:

Would the two training methods have made a considerable difference in therms of their speed? If yes, to which of the two mounts Skwiot's remarks do apply? :hmm2:

@Volodya: in your experience, would these numbers be too slow? I think the trick would be to make the training speeds for the 3.7mm too slow to be really effective (as is historical), but not so slow as to be totally worthless :hmmm:

I agree 100%, as far as the SK C/30 is concerned. Yet, I would make the M42 noticeably more effective (though not infallible, indeed).

Awesome! :yeah: I will continue gathering everything I can find about escort radar and asdic.

Good! :yeah:
By looking AI_Sensors.sim, you will easily notice which sensor properties are moddable, and which not :03:

The best way I have suggested earlier: you and Gabriele are looking for historical data (because very few needed resources in Russian), I have to adapt this data to the realities of the game.. :up:

Game realities vs historical realities :doh:

I hope we can mediate among them, and make them good friends :up:

keysersoze

03-08-13, 07:43 PM

The best way I have suggested earlier: you and Gabriele are looking for historical data (because very few needed resources in Russian), I have to adapt this data to the realities of the game.. :up:

It's a good plan :up: but I think you might have the harder job. It's time-consuming but not difficult to find historical numbers. It's harder to determine how to make these guns behave in a realistic but fun manner.

keysersoze

03-08-13, 07:54 PM

Oddly, there is disaccordance among the two sources about the elevation angle at which the maximum range was obtained; 37.5 deg according to Wikipedia (this figure is also confirmed by your "Historical Specifications" document) and 45 deg according to navalweaps (which is in line with the maximum range elevation angle reported by various sources for most other guns). :hmm2:

To make things even more confusing :03: , Hans Mehl says the maximum range was 8500 m at 35 deg (p. 117). But does the game consider the firing angle when computing range?

Yes please, send them my way. We still don't know how/if the tolerance factors get actually applied in game, but setting them won't harm anyway :up:

Okay, I'll report them when I get a chance.

Your numbers seem convincing to me. Peraphs I would increase a bit more M42 tracking rates, but in absence of more precise information, I think the final settings will be decided by Volodya on the base of his tests.

That sounds fair. Those numbers were just meant to be conversation-starters.

Before testing starts, I would like to poit you to another piece of information found again on Wikipedia:

"The Ubts LC/39 submarine mount used the SK C/30U gun. It was a simple pedestal mount with a two-man crew, one of whom trained the gun with the shoulder stirrup; the other used gears to elevate the gun."

Evidently, this is not the handwheel trained mount represented in game (Ubts. LC/30?). Now the point is:

Would the two training methods have made a considerable difference in therms of their speed? If yes, to which of the two mounts Skwiot's remarks do apply? :hmm2:

Hmmm :hmmm: I checked the Wikipedia page and the article cites navweaps as the source for that quote. However, I didn't see any information on the navweaps page about manual training with shoulder stirrups. Did I miss something? In Hans Mehl's book, there is a picture of a 3.7 cm C/30 U salvaged from a U-boat, and there are clearly two handwheels visible.

Good! :yeah:
By looking AI_Sensors.sim, you will easily notice which sensor properties are moddable, and which not :03:

I looked at the sensor controllers for radar and hydrophones last night but didn't experiment with them. I'm running some test with depth charges right now. :D

Game realities vs historical realities :doh:

I hope we can mediate among them, and make them good friends :up:

:up:

gap

03-08-13, 09:21 PM

I have just finished editing the information shown in the guns selection screen for all of the guns available in game as U-boat upgrades. My updates are reflecting the specs that will be really featured in game.

Keysersoze, can you have a look at them. Please correct any inaccuracy, mistyping or grammar error you will encounter, and feel free to adjust the style or to add any spec/concise information that you think could fit in.

It should feel like a KM engineer was giving us a short breefing on the weapons available in our arsenal, telling us whatever we just need to know before fitting then on our U-boat :03:

Thanks! :salute:

Upack20mmSingle-Name=2 cm FlaK C/30
Upack2x20mmSingle-Name=2 x 2 cm FlaK C/30
Upack20mmSingle-Info=Shell caliber: 2cm / Shell weight: 0.134 to 0.148 kg|Muzzle velocity: 800 to 835 m/sec|Maximum range: 4,900m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 3,700 m at 85 deg|Breech: automatic|Feed system: 1 x 20-round box magazine|Rate of fire: 280 rounds/min (cyclic) / 120 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -11 to +85 deg|Traverse rate: 60 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 10 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 1,120 rounds|Weight: ca. 0.8 t (gun and ammo)
Upack20mmSingle-Notes=This recoil-operated air-cooled automatic gun is one of the most used weapons in the German arsenal; despite its widesread, it is prone to jamming and uses a small magazine, which means frequent pauses for reloading.

Upack20mmSingleImp-Name=2 cm FlaK C/38
Upack2x20mmSingleImp-Name=2 x 2 cm FlaK C/38
Upack20mmSingleImp-Info=Shell caliber: 2 cm / Shell weight: 0.134 to 0.148 kg|Muzzle velocity: 800 to 835 m/sec|Maximum range: 4,900 m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 3,700 m at 85 deg|Breech: automatic|Feed system: 1 x 40-round box magazine|Rate of fire: 480 rounds/min (cyclic) / 220 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -11 to +85 deg|Traverse rate: 60 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 30 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 1,120 rounds|Weight: ca. 0.8 t (gun and ammo)
Upack20mmSingleImp-Notes=This automatic gun is based on the same design as the FlaK C/30. Compared to the old model, ballistic specifications and accepted ammunition are unchanged. However the improved bolt and the bigger magazine fitted on the C/38, ensure greater reliability and a nearly doubled rate of fire. Moreover, the addition of an overdrive gear has sensibly increased the elevation rate.

Upack20mmTwin-Name=2 cm Flakzwilling C/30
Upack20mmTwin-Info=Shell caliber: 2 cm / Shell weight: 0.134 to 0.148 kg|Muzzle velocity: 800 to 835 m/sec|Maximum range: 4,900 m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 3,700 m at 85 deg|Breech: automatic|Feed system: 2 x 20-round box magazines|Rate of fire: 560 rounds/min (cyclic) / 240 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -10 to +78 deg|Traverse rate: 60 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 10 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 2,240 rounds|Weight: ca. 1.2 t (gun and ammo)
Upack20mmTwin-Notes=Compared to the single mount FlaK C/30, the twin configuration ensures a double volume of fire with a limited increase of weight.

Upack20mmImpTwin-Name=2 cm Flakzwilling C/38
Upack20mmImpTwin-Info=Shell caliber: 2 cm / Shell weight: 0.134 to 0.148 kg|Muzzle velocity: 800 to 835 m/sec mps|Maximum range: 4,900 m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 3,700 m at 85 deg|Breech: automatic|Feed system: 2 x 40-round box magazines|Rate of fire: 960 rounds/min (cyclic) / 440 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -10 to +78 deg|Traverse rate: 50 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 30 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 2,240 rounds|Weight: ca. 1.2 t (gun and ammo)
Upack20mmImpTwin-Notes=Compared to the single mount FlaK C/38, the twin configuration ensures a double volume of fire with a limited increase of weight. Moreover, the large 12mm plate fitted on this model offers protection to the man crew.

Upack20mmVierling-Name=2 cm Flakvierling 38
Upack20mmVierling-Info=Shell caliber: 2 cm / Shell weight: 0.134 to 0.148 kg|Muzzle velocity: 800 to 835 m/sec|Maximum range: 4,900 m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 3,700 m at 85 deg|Breech: automatic and semi-automatic|Feed system: 4 x 40-round box magazines|Rate of fire (4 guns): 1,400 rounds/min (cyclic) / 800 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -10 to +90 deg|Traverse rate: 25 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 30 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 4,480 rounds|Weight: ca. 3.6 t (gun and ammo)
Upack20mmVierling-Notes=The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, this is the most effective weapon of its caliber available in the Kriegsmarine arsenal.

Upack37mmSingle-Name=3.7 cm SK C/30U
Upack37mmSingle-Info=Shell caliber: 3.7 cm / Shell weight: 0.742 kg|Muzzle velocity: 1,000 m/sec|Maximum range: 8,500 m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 6,800 m at 85 deg|Breech: semi-automatic|Feed system: individual shells|Rate of fire: 80 rounds/min (theoretical) / 30 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -10 to +90 deg|Traverse rate: 8 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 5 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 800 rounds|Weight: ca. 3.1 t (gun and ammo)
Upack37mmSingle-Notes=This is the wet mount version of the 3.7 cm SK C/30 gun, on duty on every major Kriegmarine warship. Although its main usage is in the AA role, the ballistic characteristics of this gun make it effective against low armored surface vessels. The downside is that the gun is only capable of semi-automatic firing, with each shell being individually loaded. This fact, coupled with the fairly slow tracking speed, render it a rather slow-firing and clumsy weapon for anti-aircraft defense.

Upack37mmImpSingle-Name=3.7 cm FlaK M42U
Upack37mmImpSingle-Info=Shell caliber: 3.7 cm / Shell weight: 0.635 to 0.700 kg|Muzzle velocity: 815 to 865 m/sec|Maximum range: 6,400 m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 4,800 m at 85 deg|Breech: automatic|Feed system: linked 6-round ammunition strips|Rate of fire: 250 rounds/min (cyclic) / 150 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -10 to +90 deg|Traverse rate: 16 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 10 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 1,200 rounds|Weight: ca. 2.9 t (gun and ammo)
Upack37mmImpSingle-Notes=This AA gun is essentially a longer barrel version of the 3.7 cm Flak 36, widely used by Wermacht and Luftwaffe. An improvement over the FlaK SK C/30, the model M42 is recoil-operated and is fed by a 6-round belt, trading off the overall projectile range and muzzle velocity for rate of fire. One of its rounds is enough to shot down a single engine aircraft, which makes it a formidable weapon even aganst the four-engine submarine hunting Liberators.

Upack37mmImpTwin-Name=3.7 cm Flakzwilling M42U
Upack37mmImpTwin-Info=Shell caliber: 3.7 cm / Shell weight: 0.635 to 0.700 kg|Muzzle velocity: 815 to 865 m/sec|Maximum range: 6,400 m at 45 deg / Maximum ceiling: 4,800 m at 85 deg|Breech: automatic|Feed system: linked 6-round ammunition strips|Rate of fire: 500 rounds/min (cyclic) / 300 rounds/min (practical)|Elevation: -10 to +90 deg|Traverse rate: 16 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 10 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 2,400 rounds|Weight: ca. 4.7 t (gun and ammo)
Upack37mmImpTwin-Notes=This is the same gun as the FlaK M42, but in double mounting. Though being one of the best AA weapons in service with the Ubootwaffe, it is rather heavy for an U-boat, and it was made available only in limited numbers.

Upack88mmDG-Name=8.8 cm SK C/35U
Upack88mmDG-Info=Shell caliber: 8.8 cm / Shell weight: 9.0 to 10.2 kg|Muzzle velocity: ca. 700 m/sec|Maximum range: 11,950 m at 30 deg|Breech: semi-automatic|Feed system: individual shells|Rate of fire: ca. 15 rounds/min|Elevation: -10 to +30 deg|Traverse rate: 1.5 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 1.5 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 220 rounds|Weight: ca. 5.5 t (gun and ammo)
Upack88mmDG-Notes=The 8.8 cm SK C/35U is the standard deck gun fitted aboard U-boats, and it is rewarded as an effective and very reliable weapon. Its main use is in surface engagements against small crafts or for finishing off damaged vessels. Installing this weapon will trade some of the U-boat's underwater speed and dive time for increased firepower.

Upack105mmDG-Name=10.5cm Ubts L/45
Upack105mmDG-Info=Shell caliber: 10.5 cm / Shell weight: ca. 15 kg|Muzzle velocity: ca. 780 m/sec|Maximum range: 15,175 m at 44.4 deg|Breech: semi-automatic|Feed system: individual shells|Rate of fire: ca. 15 rounds/min|Elevation: -10 to +35 deg|Traverse rate: 3 deg/sec / Elevation rate: 3 deg/sec|Ammunition stowage: 110 rounds|Weight: ca. 5.4 t (gun and ammo)
Upack105mmDG-Notes=This weapon served in the Kriegsmarine during World War I. The surviving guns are now being overhauled for accepting more modern ammunition and for being fitted aboard U-boats, torpedo boats and other small vessels. Its improved ballistics will come in handy in case of though surface engagements, but the weight of the 10.5 cm rounds will entail a reduced ammo loadout.

gap

03-08-13, 09:35 PM

It's a good plan :up: but I think you might have the harder job. It's time-consuming but not difficult to find historical numbers. It's harder to determine how to make these guns behave in a realistic but fun manner.

yes, that's true. We got to help Volodya in any way. I think tomorrow my tweaks will be ready (only the deck guns are left). Then, we will arrange a work plan :yep:

To make things even more confusing :03: , Hans Mehl says the maximum range was 8500 m at 35 deg (p. 117).

:doh:

But does the game consider the firing angle when computing range?

yes, gun maximum ranges as set as a distance in meters and an angle in deg, just like in books. Nonetheless, I ignore how the game is calculating the range at different angles.

Okay, I'll report them when I get a chance.

:up:

Hmmm :hmmm: I checked the Wikipedia page and the article cites navweaps as the source for that quote. However, I didn't see any information on the navweaps page about manual training with shoulder stirrups. Did I miss something? In Hans Mehl's book, there is a picture of a 3.7 cm C/30 U salvaged from a U-boat, and there are clearly two handwheels visible.

Well, after all I think I can live with this doubt. Unless we find other evidence, the trav/elev speeds you have suggested are good to me :up:

I looked at the sensor controllers for radar and hydrophones last night but didn't experiment with them. I'm running some test with depth charges right now. :D

Make sure that IRAI is enabled during your tests, and don't esisate getting in touch on any doubt, or if you just think that I have found something that is worth discussing :salute:

keysersoze

03-09-13, 12:30 AM

keysersoze

03-09-13, 12:40 AM

yes, that's true. We got to help Volodya in any way. I think tomorrow my tweaks will be ready (only the deck guns are left). Then, we will arrange a work plan :yep:

Definitely. I plan to help with testing as much as I can.

yes, gun maximum ranges as set as a distance in meters and an angle in deg, just like in books. Nonetheless, I ignore how the game is calculating the range at different angles.

I'm impressed the game takes these things into account.

Make sure that IRAI is enabled during your tests, and don't esisate getting in touch on any doubt, or if you just think that I have found something that is worth discussing :salute:

I always play and test with IRAI on; it is really one of the indispensable mods. My testing has not been systematic yet, but I will post any useful findings.

gap

03-09-13, 10:54 AM

This looks excellent :up: I read through it carefully and could find almost no issues. Here are a few small suggestions:

Thanks :)

For 2cm C/30 Flakzwilling — "this model offers protection to crewmen

Do you mean the Flakzwilling C/38 (the twin C/30 have no protection)? :hmmm:

What about: "protection to the manning crew."?

Besides making the corrections suggested by you, I have made some changes/additions to the following notes:

Upack20mmSingle-Notes=This recoil-operated air-cooled automatic gun is one of the most used weapons in the German arsenal. Despite its widespread use, it is prone to jamming and uses a small magazine, which means frequent pauses for reloading. What is more, the low explosive payload of its projectile is unlikely to inflict enough damage to ensure a "kill" with one hit.

Upack20mmTwin-Notes=Due to the volume of fire it can put out, the twin configuration of the FlaK C/30 is a little more capable of bringing down an aircraft than its single mount predecessor. This is obtained at the expenses of an increase in weight, which was however kept as low as possible.

Upack20mmImpTwin-Notes=Compared to the single mount FlaK C/38, the twin configuration ensures a double volume of fire with a limited increase of weight. With some luck, this should give you the chance of downing a small plane with a single, well aimed shot. Moreover, the large 12mm plate fitted on this model will offer protection to the manning crew.

What do you think? Do you have any stylistic suggestion? Please, feel free to make any addition/deletion/phrase rearrangement tha you think would improve the legibility of the texts prepared by me, and make them more immersive :up:

I also noticed that you listed the 10.5 cm's rate of fire as 15 rpm. I can't reference Skwiot right now, but I seem to recall that he gives a small number, more like 8 rpm. I will double-check this.

This is the rate of fire reported by navweaps for both the 10.5 cm Ubts L/45 (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_41-45_skc06.htm) and the later 10.5 cm SK C/32 (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_41-45_skc32.htm). Let me know if you find any contrasting information in your sources :)

I'm impressed the game takes these things into account.

You will notice that on very long shots shell tracers follow a parabolic trajectory :yep:
Among many broken game features, at last shells range seems to work as supposed.

On the contrary I suspect that armor penetrations are not affected by impact angle or target range, or at least I couldn't find any evidence of it. :hmmm:

keysersoze

03-09-13, 12:48 PM

Do you mean the Flakzwilling C/38 (the twin C/30 have no protection)? :hmmm:

Oops...yes, I meant the Flakzwilling C/38. Sorry for the mistyping.

What about: "protection to the manning crew."?

:up:

Besides making the corrections suggested by you, I have made some changes/additions to the following notes:

Upack20mmSingle-Notes=This recoil-operated air-cooled automatic gun is one of the most used weapons in the German arsenal. Despite its widespread use, it is prone to jamming and uses a small magazine, which means frequent pauses for reloading. What is more, the low explosive payload of its projectile is unlikely to inflict enough damage to ensure a "kill" with one hit.

Upack20mmTwin-Notes=Due to the volume of fire it can put out, the twin configuration of the FlaK C/30 is a little more capable of bringing down an aircraft than its single mount predecessor. This is obtained at the expenses of an increase in weight, which was however kept as low as possible.

Upack20mmImpTwin-Notes=Compared to the single mount FlaK C/38, the twin configuration ensures a double volume of fire with a limited increase in weight. With some luck, this should give you the chance of downing a small plane with a single, well aimed shot. Moreover, the large 12mm plate fitted on this model will offer protection to the manning crew.

:up:

What do you think? Do you have any stylistic suggestion? Please, feel free to make any addition/deletion/phrase rearrangement tha you think would improve the legibility of the texts prepared by me, and make them more immersive :up:

Here are a few suggestions. I will post more if I think of them:

Upack20mmSingle-Notes=This recoil-operated air-cooled automatic gun is one of the most used weapons in the German arsenal. Despite its widespread use, it is prone to jamming, rests on a short mount more suitable for surface engagement than to protection against attacking aircraft, and uses a small magazine, which means frequent pauses for reloading. What is more, the low explosive payload of its projectile is unlikely to inflict enough damage to ensure a "kill" with one hit.

Upack20mmSingleImp-Notes=The first major attempt to improve U-boat anti-aircraft capability, this automatic gun is based on the same design as the FlaK C/30. Compared to the old model, ballistic specifications and accepted ammunition are unchanged. However the improved bolt and the bigger magazine fitted on the C/38, ensure greater reliability and a nearly doubled rate of fire. Moreover, the addition of an overdrive gear has sensibly increased the elevation rate.

Upack20mmVierling-Notes=The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, this is the most effective weapon of its caliber available in the Kriegsmarine arsenal. The increasing threat of airborne attack has forced BdU to order immediate installation of the 20mm Flakvierling C/38 on all U-boats, even before the results of trials aboard U-758 are known. This weapon should prove a potent addition to the U-boat's FlaK suite, at least until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.

Upack37mmSingle-Notes=The result of an urgent anti-aircraft development program ordered in June 1942, this is the wet mount version of the 3.7 cm SK C/30 gun, on duty on every major Kriegmarine warship. Although its main usage is in the AA role, the ballistic characteristics of this gun make it effective against lightly armored surface vessels. The downside is that the gun is only capable of semi-automatic firing, with each shell being individually loaded. This fact, coupled with the fairly slow tracking speed, render it a rather slow-firing and clumsy weapon for anti-aircraft defense.
[/QUOTE]

You will notice that on very long shots shell tracers follow a parabolic trajectory :yep:
Among many broken game features, at last shells range seems to work as supposed.

On the contrary I suspect that armor penetrations are not affected by impact angle or target range, or at least I couldn't find any evidence of it. :hmmm:

The more I use the Goblin editor, the more impressed I am with the features that are implemented (or at least possible) in the game. It's too bad impact angle/armor penetration is not modeled, since I sometimes like to create ahistorical single missions to watch the fireworks between two battlefleets :cool: I have an interesting diagram of a US interwar armor penetration study if you want it.

One more question: Does the game include the MG151? It was not widely used, but, if I am understanding my sources correctly, it was used at least as often as the C/30 Flakzwilling.

gap

03-09-13, 02:02 PM

Here are a few suggestions. I will post more if I think of them:

...

Excellent :yeah:
If I can make a criticims, I would just remove any mention to the fact that a gun is currently being tested, because our submarine could be exactly the one where the weapon is going to be tested, at the cost of a very high renown required, indeed :03:

On a side note: should we add an equipment upgrdade option for removing the previosly fitted guns? The categories are: deckguns, light FlaKs (2cm C/30-C/38, single and twin) and heavy FlaKs (vierling and 3.7cm guns). No deckgun is the standard equipment for the VIIC/41, if I remember correctly, but there is currently no option for removing the deckgun from other U-boat types (unless, using Equipment Upgrades Fix, you replace it with a schnorkel). As for FlaKs, there is no way at all to remove them. Would adding this option be historically correct? :hmm2:

The more I use the Goblin editor, the more impressed I am with the features that are implemented (or at least possible) in the game.

Yes, digging into SH5 files you will discover many bugged new features that devs probably gave up at the last moment, and some finished and working features that were poorly exploited, if used at all. :yep:

It's too bad impact angle/armor penetration is not modeled, since I sometimes like to create ahistorical single missions to watch the fireworks between two battlefleets :cool:

I am not actually sure whether they are implemented or not. For sure, there is only one armor penetration setting for each shell in Shells.zon file, and no trace of an impact angle or range, to which the above AP setting would apply. The most complete description of how armor penetration and the damage model in general work in SHIV, is contained in this highly interesting thread:

http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1378&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=e41840a239a59a5e5feb8e981ed8c121

Unfortunately, it makes no mention of the factors we are discussing :-?

I have an interesting diagram of a US interwar armor penetration study if you want it.

yes please, share it :up:
By the way, I while ago I have made my own diagram based on the AP figures I had available for the guns featured in game:

http://imageshack.us/scaled/thumb/10/apgraph.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1620/apgraph.jpg)

This graph is contained in an excel spreadsheet collecting all the information I have on SH5 guns. I had uploaded it here (BTW: Volodya, did you ever get it?),
but since then I have added some more information. If you like, I can send it your way :up:

One more question: Does the game include the MG151? It was not widely used, but, if I am understanding my sources correctly, it was used at least as often as the C/30 Flakzwilling.

No, unfortunately not. And since we are at it I will tell you that, though being among the other gun files, the twin M42 is broken.
In future we can try to add/fix these guns too, but at the moment I would stick to the ones currently featured in game. :salute:

TheDarkWraith

03-09-13, 02:42 PM

I am not actually sure whether they are implemented or not. For sure, there is only one armor penetration setting for each shell in Shells.zon file, and no trace of an impact angle or range, to which the above AP setting would apply. The most complete description of how armor penetration and the damage model in general work in SHIV, is contained in this highly interesting thread

yes and no. I received this from one of the devs long ago:

Instead of the currently four values governing damages (AmmoDamageInfo – Hitpoints, ArmorLevel, MinRadius, MaxRadius) we need a little more

AP – Armor Penetration
MinEF – Explosive Damage Factor – the HitPoints of old ;)
MaxEF -
MinRange – as before, for calculating the damage done through explosion
MaxRange – as before, for calculating the damage done through explosion
In the calculus below, we may also use the value “A”, being the armor value of the considered object.

A projectile will deal damage:

Explosive damage (ED) – damage done by the explosion

ED = random (MinEF, MaxEF); will be modified for range as before.

Steps to check damage dealt by a projectile

projectile hits object O in part P
Penetration check

Penetration roll:

k = 0.2 – subject to change
x = random (-k;+k)
Pen = AP * [1 + x]
Pen > = A results in penetration

If Penetration is successful: (else skip to 5)
4. Apply ED at point of impact, and skip to end; armor is ignored for penetrated object and all compartments inside it.
5. penetration was not successful:
6. apply explosion blast damage in impact point. Armor is considered as follows – for all objects in MaxRange, ED (corrected for range) is compared to 4 * A. If ED is greater, it is applied, to the object.

keysersoze

03-09-13, 03:54 PM

Excellent :yeah:
If I can make a criticims, I would just remove any mention to the fact that a gun is currently being tested, because our submarine could be exactly the one where the weapon is going to be tested, at the cost of a very high renown required, indeed :03:

You're right. I forgot about the possibility that we might be the ones aboard U758 who get to try out that beautiful new FlaK gun :woot:

On a side note: should we add an equipment upgrdade option for removing the previosly fitted guns? The categories are: deckguns, light FlaKs (2cm C/30-C/38, single and twin) and heavy FlaKs (vierling and 3.7cm guns). No deckgun is the standard equipment for the VIIC/41, if I remember correctly, but there is currently no option for removing the deckgun from other U-boat types (unless, using Equipment Upgrades Fix, you replace it with a schnorkel). As for FlaKs, there is no way at all to remove them. Would adding this option be historically correct? :hmm2:

Just to clarify: do you mean that it is currently not possible to remove a deck or FlaK gun and leave the equipment slot empty? I didn't realize this. If so, I think this would be absolutely essential for simulating the historical evolution of U-boat armaments. FlaKs would be less of a problem than deck guns, since BdU generally added more and more FlaK firepower, rather than reducing it. But after April 1943, no U-boat should have a deck gun unless it is operating in the Mediterranean or the polar regions and has obtained a "special" clearance from BdU.

I am not actually sure whether they are implemented or not. For sure, there is only one armor penetration setting for each shell in Shells.zon file, and no trace of an impact angle or range, to which the above AP setting would apply. The most complete description of how armor penetration and the damage model in general work in SHIV, is contained in this highly interesting thread:

http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1378&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=e41840a239a59a5e5feb8e981ed8c121

Unfortunately, it makes no mention of the factors we are discussing :-?

The information in that thread and in TDW's post suggests the model is more complicated than I thought. Hmmm...this might be worth looking into once more pressing matters have been taken care of.

yes please, share it :up:
By the way, I while ago I have made my own diagram based on the AP figures I had available for the guns featured in game:

http://imageshack.us/scaled/thumb/10/apgraph.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1620/apgraph.jpg)

This graph is contained in an excel spreadsheet collecting all the information I have on SH5 guns. I had uploaded it here (BTW: Volodya, did you ever get it?),
but since then I have added some more information. If you like, I can send it your way :up:

Check your e-mail for the armor penetration information. That excel diagram looks great. I would like to have a copy if you don't mind :salute:

No, unfortunately not. And since we are at it I will tell you that, though being among the other gun files, the twin M42 is broken.
In future we can try to add/fix these guns too, but at the moment I would stick to the ones currently featured in game. :salute:

I feared as much. Anyway, the twin M42 and the MG151 are relatively unimportant in the bigger picture. Richard Stern says that only a few "very late VIICs received a twin M42, so we can deal with them when the time comes...first thing's first :yep:

gap

03-09-13, 04:40 PM

yes and no. I received this from one of the devs long ago:

...

Thank you for sharing TDW :salute:

two remarks:

from the pseudocode posted by you, it seems that SH5 AP calculations were greatly semplified. According to a post by Observer, in the aforementioned SubmarineSimCentral forum thread:

How does the game engine know if the weapons AP is sufficient to penetrate the zone armor? It is based on several formulas below:
Shells: Armor Penetration = (random number between 1-PT and 1+PT)*Shell AP + HP/ALF where
PT = Penetration Threshold. This is defined in the zones.cfg in the [Global Params] section and is 20% for RFB
Shell AP = the shell AP setting in the AmmoDamageInfo controller of the shells.ZON
HP = a random number between the minimum and maximum HP setting in the AmmoDamageInfo controller of the shells.ZON
ALF = Armor Leveling Factor. This is defined in the zones.cfg in the [Global Params] section and is 4 for RFB

Example:
PT = 20%
ALF = 4
Shell AP = 5
MinEF = 1
MaxEF = 3

1. What is the maximum armor this shell will penetrate?
Using the formula above: AP = (1+0.2)*5+3/4 = 6.75
Therefore this shell will penetrate any armor less than 6.7 and cause damage at least part of the time. It won't penetrate this armor every time since the HP and PT are random numbers.

2. What is the minimum armor this shell will always penetrate and cause damage?
Using the formula above: AP = (1-0.2)*5+1/4 = 4.25
Therefore this shell will always cause damage to anything with an armor setting of 4.2 or less every time a shell impacts the zone.

This is relative to SH4 (involved parameters underlined). In SH5 only shell AP and a random x factor are apparently required. Talking about the latter, the dev that you had been in touch with, says that it is based over another k factor which is subject to change. I wonder if this is the same "Penetration Threshold" seen in the SH4 formula.

Neither in the SH4 formula nor in the SH5 one, range from target seems to be considered. MinRange and MaxRange are used for HP calculation (if the AP test is passed), and they are relative to distance from the hit point, sort of a balst effect radius, rather than range from the gun to the target :yep:

gap

03-09-13, 05:35 PM

You're right. I forgot about the possibility that we might be the ones aboard U758 who get to try out that beautiful new FlaK gun :woot:

Can you please adjust the relevant note accordingly? :D

Just to clarify: do you mean that it is currently not possible to remove a deck or FlaK gun and leave the equipment slot empty? I didn't realize this. If so, I think this would be absolutely essential for simulating the historical evolution of U-boat armaments. FlaKs would be less of a problem than deck guns, since BdU generally added more and more FlaK firepower, rather than reducing it. But after April 1943, no U-boat should have a deck gun unless it is operating in the Mediterranean or the polar regions and has obtained a "special" clearance from BdU.

I haven't ever gone that far in the campaign... for me, WWII ended on October or November '39, if I remember correctly :D. But for what I can see from the files, it seems to me that we have not such an option. Nonetheless, the C/41 has not deckgun set as standard equipment, so when we are assigned to command one of them, the deck is empty (dunno if it can accept a deckgun as upgrade though). Stick in mind that I am talking out of memory, so I can be in part wrong.

Honestly I can't remember if Equipment Upgrades Fix deals with this issue, but for sure I remember that it adds an option for no radar, so doing the same for the deckgun should be possible.

Now the point is that, according to the historical facts reported by you, the deckgun should be removed by default (i.e. by B.d.U. order) rather than being a decision by the Captain. I am not sure that the same can be done in game, but in UpgardePacks.upc there are some UnitUpgradePackIntervalOptionCurrent (similar to UnitUpgradePackIntervalOptions, used for setting upgrades availability dates and rreward cost) that I have always wondered what they are for. We can try messing with them, and see what happens :03:

The information in that thread and in TDW's post suggests the model is more complicated than I thought. Hmmm...this might be worth looking into once more pressing matters have been taken care of.

yes, that information will help us setting correctly weapon's zon files (it is: the damage they can do)

Check your e-mail for the armor penetration information. That excel diagram looks great. I would like to have a copy if you don't mind :salute:

Got it, first rate stuff. I will have a close look to it. Thanks :up:

I am now cleaning my spreadsheet, for increasing its legibility. I will send it to you in a few... :)

I feared as much. Anyway, the twin M42 and the MG151 are relatively unimportant in the bigger picture. Richard Stern says that only a few "very late VIICs received a twin M42, so we can deal with them when the time comes...first thing's first :yep:

Yes, I agree. Talking about the twin M42 issue, it is weird: the gun model loads correctly in TDW's Editor, Granny Viewer and Goblin. I set it to be used as an upgrade in game, and after selecting it, the boat gets actually equipped with this huge FlaK. Everything seems as expected, but as soon as I walk close to the gun, I can't move anymore (same for the chracters around me), the screen gets full of waterdrops, and if I am in bunker, bunker sound switches to ocean ambient sound. Game seems freezed, but it isn't (time goes on) :hmmm:

Thinking that something was wrong in my settings, I kept them but I assigned another 3d gun. Result? Everything is normal, so the problem must be in gun's GR2 file or in one of its associated files, though lookig at them in Goblin Editor didn't show anything abnormal :-?

P.S: please, don't forget this: :D

I also noticed that you listed the 10.5 cm's rate of fire as 15 rpm. I can't reference Skwiot right now, but I seem to recall that he gives a small number, more like 8 rpm. I will double-check this.

gap

03-09-13, 06:17 PM

here's my gun data spreadheet:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?htnbngcyqwtu8ac

I post it here, in case someone wants to have a look at it :salute:

keysersoze

03-09-13, 10:55 PM

Can you please adjust the relevant note accordingly? :D

All I can think of right now is to remove the offending line. I will let you know if I think of any pithy historical comments for the descriptions. Here's the edited version:

The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, this is the most effective weapon of its caliber available in the Kriegsmarine arsenal. The increasing threat of airborne attack has forced BdU to order immediate installation of the 20mm Flakvierling C/38 on all U-boats. This weapon should prove a potent addition to the U-boat's FlaK suite, at least until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.

I haven't ever gone that far in the campaign... for me, WWII ended on October or November '39, if I remember correctly :D.

I know what you mean! My record is December 1941 in SH3 GWX, but I've never reached 1940 in SH5. Someday I will see all these upgrades on my own boat...

But for what I can see from the files, it seems to me that we have not such an option. Nonetheless, the C/41 has not deckgun set as standard equipment, so when we are assigned to command one of them, the deck is empty (dunno if it can accept a deckgun as upgrade though). Stick in mind that I am talking out of memory, so I can be in part wrong.

I will check when I get home, but I thought there was an option to remove the deck gun included with the equipment mod. I'm not certain, though.

Yes, I agree. Talking about the twin M42 issue, it is weird: the gun model loads correctly in TDW's Editor, Granny Viewer and Goblin. I set it to be used as an upgrade in game, and after selecting it, the boat gets actually equipped with this huge FlaK. Everything seems as expected, but as soon as I walk close to the gun, I can't move anymore (same for the chracters around me), the screen gets full of waterdrops, and if I am in bunker, bunker sound switches to ocean ambient sound. Game seems freezed, but it isn't (time goes on) :hmmm:

Thinking that something was wrong in my settings, I kept them but I assigned another 3d gun. Result? Everything is normal, so the problem must be in gun's GR2 file or in one of its associated files, though lookig at them in Goblin Editor didn't show anything abnormal :-?

Very strange. I wish I could offer you cogent technical advice, but I'm at a loss with this sort of thing.

P.S: please, don't forget this: :D
[/QUOTE]

Don't worry; I haven't forgotten. Unfortunately, I can't access my sources right now, but I'll get you an answer as soon as possible.

here's my gun data spreadheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?htnbngcyqwtu8ac

I post it here, in case someone wants to have a look at it :salute:

Looks great gap :up: thanks!

keysersoze

03-10-13, 09:28 PM

gap,

I started a new campaign today and can confirm that it is possible to remove the deck gun, but not the FlaK gun. I assume this was introduced with the equipment mod, but I haven't tested any other mod combinations. To be truly realistic, the game should automatically remove all deck guns in April 1943, but I'm not sure if this is possible.

Regarding the rate of fire of the 10.5 cm: Skwiot's book has vanished from the library :wah: so I can't check it (I'm hoping someone was just using it as a reference over the weekend and it will be back on the shelves this week). My other books all agree with the 15-18 figure, though, so I think we can keep it as you have it.

gap

03-11-13, 08:26 PM

Sorry for the delay of my answers :oops:

All I can think of right now is to remove the offending line. I will let you know if I think of any pithy historical comments for the descriptions. Here's the edited version:

Okay, I have rearranged a bit the whole text, emphasizing the fact that the gun is planned to be fitted on as many boats as possible. This way, the phrase shouldn't contradict the fact that, at the very beginning the vierling will be available at an high reward cost:

In response to the increasing threat posed by Allied airplanes, BdU is now resorting to new anti-aircraft armaments. The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite its rather clumsy handling and the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, the "Vierling" is probably the most effective weapon of its caliber so far available in Kriegsmarine's arsenal. The plan is to equip as many U-boats as possible with it, until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.

What do you think? Any correction?

gap,
I started a new campaign today and can confirm that it is possible to remove the deck gun, but not the FlaK gun. I assume this was introduced with the equipment mod, but I haven't tested any other mod combinations. To be truly realistic, the game should automatically remove all deck guns in April 1943, but I'm not sure if this is possible.

Good to know that EUF provides a way to remove the deckgun, thank you for checking it.
I agree with you that it would be more realistic if the gun was unistalled automatically after a certain date. As I anticipated a few days ago, there's an "UnitUpgradePackIntervalOptionCurrent" setting which can be set for each upgrade/equipment. I suspect that it controls the allowed timespan and required reward for keeping already installaded equipments. If my supposition is correct, outside this range the gun would be removed automatically (after a stop at base, I guess). Worth some tests, I think :up:

Regarding the rate of fire of the 10.5 cm: Skwiot's book has vanished from the library :wah: so I can't check it (I'm hoping someone was just using it as a reference over the weekend and it will be back on the shelves this week).

another silent hunter player conceal himself behind the shelves of your library? :huh: :D

My other books all agree with the 15-18 figure, though, so I think we can keep it as you have it.

Okay, I am rechecking for good al the settings edited so far. I have found some controversial information that I wish to discuss with you, before I finally hand over to you and Volodya my work. I will post an update on the controversial specs tomorrow :salute:

keysersoze

03-11-13, 09:48 PM

Sorry for the delay of my answers :oops:
Okay, I have rearranged a bit the whole text, emphasizing the fact that the gun is planned to be fitted on as many boats as possible. This way, the phrase shouldn't contradict the fact that, at the very beginning the vierling will be available at an high reward cost:

In response to the increasing threat posed by Allied airplanes, BdU is now resorting to new anti-aircraft armaments. The 2cm Flakvierling 38 consists of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, ammunition racks and 12mm thick steel shield. Despite its rather clumsy handling and the limited size of the magazines, which nearly halves its theoretical rate of fire, the "Vierling" is probably the most effective weapon of its caliber so far available in Kriegsmarine's arsenal. The plan is to equip as many U-boats as possible with it, until the more powerful 3.7 cm gun becomes available.

What do you think? Any correction?

This looks great :up:

another silent hunter player conceal himself behind the shelves of your library? :huh: :D

Possibly, as I don't think there are very many other people interested in the tracking rate of WWII German flak guns :O:

Okay, I am rechecking for good al the settings edited so far. I have found some controversial information that I wish to discuss with you, before I finally hand over to you and Volodya my work. I will post an update on the controversial specs tomorrow :salute:

Ah good, I like controversial information! Looking forward to your update and the beginning of testing :salute:

gap

03-12-13, 09:22 PM

Ah good, I like controversial information! Looking forward to your update and the beginning of testing :salute:

Let's start with 20mm FlaK's rate of fire and clip's size:

according to navalweaps (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_20mm-65_c30.htm):
C/30 - cyclic RoF 280 rpm; practical Rof: 120 rpm; clip: 20 rounds; reload time (calculated): 5.7 sec
C/38 - cyclic RoF 480 rpm; practical Rof: 220 rpm; clip: 40 rounds; reload time (calculated): 5.9 sec

according to your "Historical Specifications" (Skwiot?):
C/30 - as per navweaps specs, but clip size not specified
C/38 - as per navweaps specs, but clip size not specified

according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_Flak_30/38/Flakvierling):
C/30 - as per navweaps specs
C/38 - cyclic RoF 450 rpm; practical Rof: 180 rpm; clip: 20 rounds; reload time (calculated): 4.0 sec

according to Chris Bishop's Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II (pp. 166-167):
C/30 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 280 rpm; clip: 20 rounds
C/38 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 420-480 rpm; clip: not openly specified, but in a comparison with the C/30 it is said:
"The ammunition, feed system and most of the carriage remained much the same as before." (p. 166)

according to Werner Müller's German 20mm FlaK in World War II: 1945-1945 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/44199289/German-20mm-Flak-in-WWII-From-www-jgokey-com) (pp. 6-7):
C/30 - as per navweaps specs, but cyclic Rof: 280-300 rpm
C/38 - as per navweaps specs, but clip size not specified

according to Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #27: Kriegsmarine Type VII U-boats (http://www.scribd.com/doc/111380242/Wiper-S-2004-Kriegsmarine-Type-VII-U-Boats-Warship-Pictorial-No-27) (pp. 53-54):
C/30* - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 280 rpm; clip: 20-40 rounds
C/38 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): up to 500 rpm; clip size not specified

* note that this gun is designated by Wiper as "20mm MG C30", which, according to Müller should be a different gun. But I suspect that in this case the above designation is used as a synonimous of "20mm FlaK C/30" (Flak = Machine Gun)

according to navypedia (http://www.navypedia.org/arms/germany/arms_ger_guns.htm):
C/30 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 280-300 (same as Müller's spec); clip size not specified
C/30 - only one RoF figure specified (cyclic?): 450-500

according to British Admiralty's Interrogation of U-Boat Survivors - Cumulative Edition, June 1944 (http://www.uboatarchive.net/CumulativeEdition.htm) (p. 16):
C/30 - only practical RoF specified*: 144-193; clip: 20 rounds
C/38 - only practical RoF specified: 180-240; clip: 20 rounds

* note that RoF for this gun is only specified as "about 20 per cent. lower" than the C/38 model.

SUMMING UP:

Clip size:
I made myself an idea that both the C/30 and the C/38 could have accepted indifferently 20 and 40-round magazines. The latter magazine was probably introduced in the same timeframe as the C/38, or after, therefore it is most commonly associated by various sources with the C/38 than with the C/30. Nonetheless, the big magazine had to be somehow a rare item, making its use not universal for C/38 guns, and ever lesser common for the C/30 which had yet started being replaced when the first 40-round magazines started circulating.

Currently I have 20-round magazines assigned to the C/30 guns, and 40-rounds magazines to C/38's (including the vierling). Should I retain these settings? :hmmm:

Cyclic RoF:
from the above sources we can desume the following min/max values:
C/30: 280-300 rpm (= 290 ± 3.45%)
C/38: 420-500 rpm (= 460 ± 8.70%)

The max figures are probably referred to new guns, wereas min values coulb be for weathered guns. If so, the calculated drop from the "ideal" RoF would be 6.67% for wetahered C/30's and 16% for weathered C/38's. Is this acceptable?

Should I use their averages, instead of the current settings which are 280 and 480 rpm respectively for the C/30 and the C/38?

Practical RoF:
C/30: 120 rpm
C/38: 180-240

I have discarded the information provided by Admiralty's interrogation report for the C/30, because too vague and too much in disaccordance with our other sources. As for the C/38, I think that the difference between the minimum and the maximum values could depend on many factors, including cyclic rate of fire drop (for old guns), crew experience, sea conditions, magazine used etc.
Our final setting will depend on theoretical RoF's and magazine sizes picked.

What do you think?

(to be continued...)

keysersoze

03-12-13, 09:54 PM

I made myself an idea that both the C/30 and the C/38 could have accepted indifferently 20 and 40-round magazines. The latter magazine was probably introduced in the same timeframe as the C/38, or after, therefore it is most commonly associated by various sources with the C/38 than with the C/30. Nonetheless, the big magazine had to be somehow a rare item, making its use not universal for C/38 guns, and ever lesser common for the C/30 which had yet started being replaced when the first 40-round magazines started circulating.

I think you are absolutely correct in this assumption. Regarding the C/38, Skwiot says that the 40-round magazine was used, but that the 20-round clip could also be used (p. 394). I interpret this to mean that, by the time the C/38 began appearing on U-boats, the 40-round clip was more common than its smaller cousin.

Currently I have 20-round magazines assigned to the C/30 guns, and 40-rounds magazines to C/38's (including the vierling). Should I retain these settings? :hmmm:

Yes, I think this is a fair representation of the sources. :up:

Cyclic RoF:
from the above sources we can desume the following min/max values:
C/30: 280-300 rpm (= 290 ± 3.45%)
C/38: 420-500 rpm (= 460 ± 8.70%)

The max figures are probably referred to new guns, wereas min values coulb be for weathered guns. If so, the calculated drop from the "ideal" RoF would be 6.67% for wetahered C/30's and 16% for weathered C/38's. Is this acceptable?

This looks fine, but can the game model the difference between "weathered" and "new" guns?

Should I use their averages, instead of the current settings which are 280 and 480 rpm respectively for the C/30 and the C/38?

I think averaging the numbers would be a good compromise, assuming there is no weathering effect in-game (which I doubt anyway)

Practical RoF:
C/30: 120 rpm
C/38: 180-240

As for the C/38, I think that the difference between the minimum and the maximum values could depend on many factors, including cyclic rate of fire drop (for old guns), crew experience, sea conditions, magazine used etc.
Our final setting will depend on theoretical RoF's and magazine sizes picked.

What do you think?

Based on what I have seen, I would favor giving the C/38 a 40-round magazine and a practical rate of fire between 220 and 240 rpm. That would be in harmony with most of our sources and would make the assumption (a very fair assumption, I think) that the C/38 usually had 40-round magazines.

(to be continued...)

Looking forward to it :salute:

gap

03-13-13, 10:27 AM

This looks fine, but can the game model the difference between "weathered" and "new" guns?

No, it cannot do it, average settings must be used. For instance:

cyclic pract. firing clip reload
gun RoF RoF muzzl. size time

C/30 single 290 120 1 20 5.86
C/30 twin 580 240 2 20 5.86
C/38 single 475 220 1 40 5.86
C/38 twin 950 440 2 40 5.86
C/28 quad 900 720 2 40 1.33
C/28 quad 1,800 800 4 40 6.67

I have made just small changes over previous settings. Practical rates of fire are mostly unchanged. Theoretical rates of fire were modified to obtain similar reload times for single and twin guns of both models. Vierling's reload time is a bit higher, taking into account the complexity of reloading the 4 guns at the same time; this is relative to combined firing mode. On the contrary, reload time for sustained firing mode has been sensibly reduced, assuming that the reloading of the two silent guns would have started while the two other guns were still firing. This sustained firing mode will be available as a separate patch. :salute:

keysersoze

03-13-13, 11:31 AM

No, it cannot do it, average settings must be used. For instance:

That makes sense. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about weathered and new guns.

cyclic pract. firing clip reload
gun RoF RoF muzzl. size time

C/30 single 290 120 1 20 5.86
C/30 twin 580 240 2 20 5.86
C/38 single 475 220 1 40 5.86
C/38 twin 950 440 2 40 5.86
C/28 quad 900 720 2 40 1.33
C/28 quad 1,800 800 4 40 6.67

I have made just small changes over previous settings. Practical rates of fire are mostly unchanged. Theoretical rates of fire were modified to obtain similar reload times for single and twin guns of both models. Vierling's reload time is a bit higher, taking into account the complexity of reloading the 4 guns at the same time; this is relative to combined firing mode. On the contrary, reload time for sustained firing mode has been sensibly reduced, assuming that the reloading of the two silent guns would have started while the two other guns were still firing. This sustained firing mode will be available as a separate patch. :salute:

Everything looks great (by C/28 Quad, I assume you mean the C/38 Quad). Two separate patches for the C/38 Vierling is the most logical way to go. That way, everyone can choose the rate of fire he/she wants. :yeah:

gap

03-13-13, 01:28 PM

That makes sense. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about weathered and new guns.

My bad: I didn't express myself clearly. I just wanted to understand if the discrpancies among various sources can be explained by "physiological" drops, rather than to human errors :)

Everything looks great (by C/28 Quad, I assume you mean the C/38 Quad). Two separate patches for the C/38 Vierling is the most logical way to go. That way, everyone can choose the rate of fire he/she wants. :yeah:

yep I meant C/38 Quad.

Next topic...

vierling's tracking speed.
No many sources on this topic. Nonetheless, the Admiralty report I mentioned yesterday states:

"This weapon has been found clumsy to handle since it is laid and trained by one man working two handwheels, as well as difficult to train during an aircraft's run-up, and especially during a breakaway." (p. 16)

Unfortunately, no numerical information is provided. So far, I had its traverse/elevation speeds set respectively to 25 and 30 deg/sec. Elevation rate is the same used arbitrarily for single and twin C/38's. Talking about the train rate, it was calculated as 10/12 of the elevation rate, based on Müller's statement on C/38 guns that:

"One turn of the elevation handwheel raised the barrel 4 degrees, 12 degrees in overdrive; the traverse handwheel turned the gun 10 degrees per turn and 30 degrees in overdrive" (p. 6)

and assuming that the use of the traverse overdrive gear wouldn't have been possible for the vierling, due to the considerable weight of its platform which rotated together with the barrels.
Now, based on Admiralty's information I start wondering if my settings are too high compared with the 37mm SK C/30's documented rates of 4 and 3 deg/s (respectively traverse and elevation), which were similarly considered too slow :hmmm:

keysersoze

03-13-13, 02:03 PM

My bad: I didn't express myself clearly. I just wanted to understand if the discrpancies among various sources can be explained by "physiological" drops, rather than to human errors :)

yep, I understand perfectly now. :up: I should have read it more carefully too.

vierling's tracking speed.
No many sources on this topic. Nonetheless, the Admiralty report I mentioned yesterday states:

"This weapon has been found clumsy to handle since it is laid and trained by one man working two handwheels, as well as difficult to train during an aircraft's run-up, and especially during a breakaway." (p. 16)

Unfortunately, no numerical information is provided. So far, I had its traverse/elevation speeds set respectively to 25 and 30 deg/sec. Elevation rate is the same used arbitrarily for single and twin C/38's. Talking about the train rate, it was calculated as 10/12 of the elevation rate, based on Müller's statement on C/38 guns that:

"One turn of the elevation handwheel raised the barrel 4 degrees, 12 degrees in overdrive; the traverse handwheel turned the gun 10 degrees per turn and 30 degrees in overdrive" (p. 6)

and assuming that the use of the traverse overdrive gear wouldn't have been possible for the vierling, due to the considerable weight of its platform which rotated together with the barrels.
Now, based on Admiralty's information I start wondering if my settings are too high compared with the 37mm SK C/30's documented rates of 4 and 3 deg/s (respectively traverse and elevation), which were similarly considered too slow :hmmm:

hmmm :hmmm: So we basically only have qualitative descriptions of the Vierling's tracking ability, but not much hard data. Based on these sources, I think 25 and 30 deg/sec is probably a little too fast, although your calculation of train rate being 10/12 of elevation rate (as per the C/38) seems correct. The question is, how much slower should the Vierling be? I tried searching for training speeds for the Allied 20mm Oerlikon in twin and quad mounts, hoping this might shed some light on our problem. Unfortunately, I can't find good comparative data between these models.

All I could do is guess at this point. Any ideas?

gap

03-13-13, 05:42 PM

hmmm :hmmm: So we basically only have qualitative descriptions of the Vierling's tracking ability, but not much hard data. Based on these sources, I think 25 and 30 deg/sec is probably a little too fast, although your calculation of train rate being 10/12 of elevation rate (as per the C/38) seems correct. The question is, how much slower should the Vierling be? I tried searching for training speeds for the Allied 20mm Oerlikon in twin and quad mounts, hoping this might shed some light on our problem. Unfortunately, I can't find good comparative data between these models.

All I could do is guess at this point. Any ideas?

At this point, I think I will half its tracking rates to 12.5/15 deg/s, and we will decide wether to increase, decrease or keep them after testing...

yet another controversial topic: M42's rate of fire and feeding system:

according to navalweaps (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-69_mk42.htm):
only cyclic RoF specified: 250 rpm; clip: 5-round ammunition strips

according to your "Historical Specifications" (Skwiot?):
cyclic RoF: 160-180 rpm; practical RoF: 60 rpm; clip: not specified

according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Flak_18/36/37/43):
cyclic RoF: 250 rpm; practical RoF: 120 rpm; clip: not specified*

* note that the above specs are relative to the 3.7 cm Flak 36 which, according to navweaps, was the army version of the gun that Kriegsmarine's M42 was based on. Wikipedia makes no mention of the naval mount, but it list a further development of the Flak 36, Flak 43, with the following specs: cyclic RoF: 250 rpm; practical RoF: 150 rpm; clip: 8-round clips. In the same article, it is also said that "The 3.7 cm Flak 43 M43U was the marine version of the 3.7 cm Flak 43 used by the Kriegsmarine on Type VII and Type IX U-boats. It was mounted on the LM42U mount"

according to Chris Bishop's Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II (p. 167):
only cyclic rate of fire specified: 160 rpm; clip: linked 6-round clips

according to Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #27: Kriegsmarine Type VII U-boats (http://www.scribd.com/doc/111380242/Wiper-S-2004-Kriegsmarine-Type-VII-U-Boats-Warship-Pictorial-No-27) (p. 55)
only one rate of fire figure specified (cyclic?): 180 rpm; clip: 6-round clip

according to navypedia (http://www.navypedia.org/arms/germany/arms_ger_guns.htm):
only one rate of fire figure specified (cyclic?): 180 rpm; clip size not specified

according to British Admiralty's Interrogation of U-Boat Survivors - Cumulative Edition, June 1944 (http://www.uboatarchive.net/CumulativeEdition.htm) (p. 16, 18):
only practical RoF specified: 40-50 rpm; clip size: clip of 5 rounds

SUMMING UP:

Clip size:
2 sources out of 4 reporting information on the topic, refer a 5-round clip, whereas according to the remaining 2 sources, the clip contained 6 rounds. Moreover, Bishop reports that the clips could have been linked together, thus reducing the number of reloads (though this is just my deduction). :doh:

Cyclic RoF:
160-180 rpm according to 4 sources, 250 according to 2 other sources (navweaps and wikipedia) which are reporting information on it. I wonder if they confused RoF of this gun with the one of the latter M43

Prcatical RoF:
between 40 and 60 according to 2 out of 3 sources which are providing numbers for it (though one refers 40-50, and one 60), but wikipedia states a much higher RoF of 120 rpm. Again, this huge discrepancy induces me to think that they got this gun wrong.

combining different specifications I get the following reload times:

cyclic pract. clip reload
RoF RoF size time

160 60 5 3.125
170 60 5 3.235
160 60 6 3.750
180 60 5 3.333
170 60 6 3.882
180 60 6 4.000
170 50 5 4.235
170 50 6 5.082
160 40 5 5.625
170 40 5 5.735
180 40 5 5.833
160 40 6 6.750
170 40 6 6.882
180 40 6 7.000

Any suggestion? :dead:

gap

03-13-13, 07:21 PM

one last topic we have discussed a few days ago:
8.8 and 10.5cm deck gun rate of fire:

according to navalweaps:
15 rpm for both

according to Skwiot:
ask the mistery SH lover who stole the book :D

according to Wiper:
8.8cm: 16 rpm "with a well trained crew" (p. 50); 10.5 cm: not listed

according to navypedia:
15 rpm for both

according to Admiralty's Interrogation of U-Boat Survivors (p. 16):
8.8cm: 15-18 rpm
10.5cm: 15 rpm (it is stated "maximum")

SUMMING UP

several sources suggest that the 15 rpm rate of fire we had initially assumed for 8.8cm deckgun, could have been its average performance, and that under favourable condition an higher RoF could have been obtained. Nonetheless, I am also aware that ideal conditions rarely occurred during U-boat war patrols, due to a bunch of reasons including undertrained crews, fatigue, harsh sea conditions. etc. I am therefore a bit reluctant to accept the maximum RoF suggested by Admiralty reports of 18 rpm. On the other hand, the same source seem to stress that the 15 rpm figure reported for the 10.5cm gun was its absolute maximum, though no average RoF is given. Keeping the same proportionality shown by 8.8cm's RoF's, we can nonetheless guestimate:

15*15/18 = 12.5 rpm

This lower rate of fire could account for the heavier shell fired. So, if you accept my rasoning RoF's for 8.8 and 10.5cm deckguns, could be respectively 15 and 12.5.
Indeed, in-game reload times are affected by crew veterancy levels. We should check our settings in game, but the figures I am suggesting seem to me a good starting base. Do you agree? :)

keysersoze

03-13-13, 11:39 PM

vierling's tracking speed...

The mysterious SH5 player has returned Skwiot's book, but unfortunately he has nothing to add about the Vierling's tracking speed. He describes the mount in great technical detail but doesn't mention how well it functioned.

yet another controversial topic: M42's rate of fire and feeding system
...
SUMMING UP:

Clip size:
2 sources out of 4 reporting information on the topic, refer a 5-round clip, whereas according to the remaining 2 sources, the clip contained 6 rounds. Moreover, Bishop reports that the clips could have been linked together, thus reducing the number of reloads (though this is just my deduction). :doh:

Cyclic RoF:
160-180 rpm according to 4 sources, 250 according to 2 other sources (navweaps and wikipedia) which are reporting information on it. I wonder if they confused RoF of this gun with the one of the latter M43

Prcatical RoF:
between 40 and 60 according to 2 out of 3 sources which are providing numbers for it (though one refers 40-50, and one 60), but wikipedia states a much higher RoF of 120 rpm. Again, this huge discrepancy induces me to think that they got this gun wrong.

Any suggestion? :dead:

Yes :D

After consulting Skwiot, I think I finally understand the M42 :yep:. He gives an extremely detailed discussion of the mechanics of the M42 (almost nine paragraphs, describing every lever, pin, bolt, and groove down to the millimeter). Skwiot says the practical rate of fire was 60 rpm (p. 341). He says this about the "magazine": "The cartridges were clipped in sets of five with metal strips. After loading the clip, the strips were removed and thrown away to the left" (p. 340).

If my understanding is correct, rounds were not loaded in a singular enclosed magazine. Rather, they came pre-packaged in five-round "stripper clips," which could be quickly loaded into a semi-internal box magazine, self-contained within the gun. German k98 Mauser rifles operate in exactly the same way. Here is a youtube video demonstrating the basic principle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrawsZFvlGQ

So how does this account for the reported differences between five and six round "magainzes"? One trick that can be used on certain models of rifles and, I would assume, even on Flak guns, is to load one round into the chamber and then insert the stripper clip. This means that it would be theoretically possible to have a six round "magazine" if the gun was loaded this way before an attack. During the heat of battle, it would not be practical to manually load a single round into the chamber before inserting the five-round clip.

That is the best explanation I can come up with for our divergent sources. Unfortunately, I'm sure it would not be possible to model a six round clip for the first barrage and five round clips thereafter. I think for game purposes, the five round clip would probably be a more accurate representation of standard practice.

I cannot explain the wildly higher rates of fire reported in some sources except to agree that these sources probably confused the M42 with the 3.7 cm Flak M43 Gerät 341. This is what Skwiot says about it: "One advantage of this design was a significant increase in the automation of the firing process, thus increasing the rate of fire. The ammunition was loaded in eight-round magazines" (p. 343). I think the larger magazine size and the unspecified increase in "automation" account for these differences in the reported rates of fire.

What do you think?

one last topic we have discussed a few days ago:
8.8 and 10.5cm deck gun rate of fire:

SUMMING UP

several sources suggest that the 15 rpm rate of fire we had initially assumed for 8.8cm deckgun, could have been its average performance, and that under favourable condition an higher RoF could have been obtained. Nonetheless, I am also aware that ideal conditions rarely occurred during U-boat war patrols, due to a bunch of reasons including undertrained crews, fatigue, harsh sea conditions. etc. I am therefore a bit reluctant to accept the maximum RoF suggested by Admiralty reports of 18 rpm. On the other hand, the same source seem to stress that the 15 rpm figure reported for the 10.5cm gun was its absolute maximum, though no average RoF is given. Keeping the same proportionality shown by 8.8cm's RoF's, we can nonetheless guestimate:

15*15/18 = 12.5 rpm

This lower rate of fire could account for the heavier shell fired. So, if you accept my rasoning RoF's for 8.8 and 10.5cm deckguns, could be respectively 15 and 12.5.
Indeed, in-game reload times are affected by crew veterancy levels. We should check our settings in game, but the figures I am suggesting seem to me a good starting base. Do you agree? :)

It turns out I was totally wrong! Skwiot gives an even higher rate of fire than I remembered for the 8.8 cm: 15-20 rpm (p. 253). For the 10.5 cm gun, he gives a maximum rate of fire of 15 rpm. Sorry for the confusion... I must have hallucinated those imaginary figures :oops:

I agree that these numbers should be the maximum rate of fire for the deck gun, based on crew experience and, if possible, weather conditions.

gap

03-14-13, 01:12 AM

The mysterious SH5 player has returned Skwiot's book, but unfortunately he has nothing to add about the Vierling's tracking speed. He describes the mount in great technical detail but doesn't mention how well it functioned.

It turned out that, besides being untimely, our secret SH5 fan is also uninformed. I only hope that he made a better use of Skwiot's book than employing it as a paper older :shifty: :O:

After consulting Skwiot, I think I finally understand the M42...

It makes sense. Thank you for the detailed explanation! :up:

That is the best explanation I can come up with for our divergent sources. Unfortunately, I'm sure it would not be possible to model a six round clip for the first barrage and five round clips thereafter. I think for game purposes, the five round clip would probably be a more accurate representation of standard practice.

You are right, the clip can be either of 5 or 6 rounds. :yep:

I cannot explain the wildly higher rates of fire reported in some sources except to agree that these sources probably confused the M42 with the 3.7 cm Flak M43 Gerät 341. This is what Skwiot says about it: "One advantage of this design was a significant increase in the automation of the firing process, thus increasing the rate of fire. The ammunition was loaded in eight-round magazines" (p. 343). I think the larger magazine size and the unspecified increase in "automation" account for these differences in the reported rates of fire.

What do you think?

My opinion in numbers:

cyclic RoF: 170 rpm
practical RoF: 60 rpm
clip size: 5 rounds
reload time: 3.235 sec

do you like them? :03:

It turns out I was totally wrong! Skwiot gives an even higher rate of fire than I remembered for the 8.8 cm: 15-20 rpm (p. 253). For the 10.5 cm gun, he gives a maximum rate of fire of 15 rpm. Sorry for the confusion... I must have hallucinated those imaginary figures :oops:

I agree that these numbers should be the maximum rate of fire for the deck gun, based on crew experience and, if possible, weather conditions.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that sea conditions are not taken in other account than for making guns' use impossible on high waves. But crew experience (and possibly their morale) is considered.
Just yesterday I have had a discussion with Webster on this topic; from my tests, I am almost sure that FlaK gun reload times (as set in their sim files) are the base times relative to best trained crew memebers. For lesser experienced gunners a percent extra time is added to this base time. A few weeks ago I tried finding the extra reload coefficients within game files, but to not avail... :hmmm:

More specifically about deck guns, I am not sure that their reload times are applied the same way as with FlaKs: Webster was convinced that they work the other way around (i.e. sim file settings are decremented by a percent for experienced crew, rather than being incremented for unexperienced ones). Another obscure point is wether deck gun's recoil time is added to the reload time, or not considered (i.e. gunners start reloading the gun while it is still recoiling). From stock settings, I am sure that when they calculated their settings, devs didn't take recoil times into account, but I ignore if they made it by mistake or for a reason.

Hopefully, we can solve the above doubts in custom mission, stopwatch close by hand; however, for a start, I lean towards decreasing the maximum reload times reported by you by 20%, i.e: 12 rpm for the 10.5cm deck gun, and 16 for the 8.8cm gun. This is accounting for climatic factors which are not considered by the game. What do you think?

keysersoze

03-14-13, 08:25 AM

It turned out that, besides being untimely, our secret SH5 fan is also uninformed. I only hope that he made a better use of Skwiot's book than employing it as a paper older :shifty: :O:

:rotfl2:

...
do you like them? :03:

:up:

Don't quote me on this, but I think that sea conditions are not taken in other account than for making guns' use impossible on high waves. But crew experience (and possibly their morale) is considered.

Thanks for the information. Do you know, by any chance, whether planes have similar weather restrictions? Can they fly in bad weather?

More specifically about deck guns, I am not sure that their reload times are applied the same way as with FlaKs: Webster was convinced that they work the other way around (i.e. sim file settings are decremented by a percent for experienced crew, rather than being incremented for unexperienced ones). Another obscure point is wether deck gun's recoil time is added to the reload time, or not considered (i.e. gunners start reloading the gun while it is still recoiling). From stock settings, I am sure that when they calculated their settings, devs didn't take recoil times into account, but I ignore if they made it by mistake or for a reason.

Hopefully, we can solve the above doubts in custom mission, stopwatch close by hand; however, for a start, I lean towards decreasing the maximum reload times reported by you by 20%, i.e: 12 rpm for the 10.5cm deck gun, and 16 for the 8.8cm gun. This is accounting for climatic factors which are not considered by the game. What do you think?

It's strange that the deck gun experience controllers work in exactly the opposite manner as the flak guns. You're probably right about recoil ties not being taken into account, but, as you said, we can solve all these problems with a stopwatch :yeah:

I think 12 rpm for the 10.5cm and 16 for the 8.8cm would be an acceptable maximum for a highly experienced crew. I have a hard time imagining a crew could fire much faster than that in average Atlantic weather conditions.

gap

03-14-13, 09:56 AM

Thanks for the information. Do you know, by any chance, whether planes have similar weather restrictions? Can they fly in bad weather?

They should not, but ask Trevally on it ;)

It's strange that the deck gun experience controllers work in exactly the opposite manner as the flak guns.

Yes, I would be also surprised of it. But Webster gave me some doubts yesterday...

You're probably right about recoil ties not being taken into account, but, as you said, we can solve all these problems with a stopwatch :yeah:

I am going to test it right away, by giving the deck gun an unusually long recoil time...

I think 12 rpm for the 10.5cm and 16 for the 8.8cm would be an acceptable maximum for a highly experienced crew. I have a hard time imagining a crew could fire much faster than that in average Atlantic weather conditions.

:up:

volodya61

03-14-13, 10:04 AM

gap

03-14-13, 10:31 AM

Targor Avelany

03-14-13, 10:37 AM

Ask Sailor Steve on it :D

I hope to send you my files today. And yes I am sort of perfectionism maniac :oops: :O:
I only hope the results will be worth all the effort we have put in this mod.

all the work you guys have done - is amazing. And, I believe I can say this for most of the subsimmers, you have our huge respect for it! :up:

volodya61

03-14-13, 10:40 AM

Ask Sailor Steve on it :D

on what? :o

I hope to send you my files today. And yes I am sort of perfectionism maniac :oops: :O:

I don't need files.. just tell me the numbers :yep:

I only hope the results will be worth all the effort we have put in this mod.

I was plagued by vague doubts :O:

Targor Avelany

03-14-13, 10:43 AM

on what? :o

cookies and milk :up:

gap

03-14-13, 11:30 AM

on what? :o

cookies and milk :up:

...which are the tacit subject of this thread, by the way. Thank you Targor for making it clear :O:

I don't need files.. just tell me the numbers :yep:

okay

I was plagued by vague doubts :O:

Dunno why, but I had started suspecting it :03:

As I told you a few days ago, nothing matters and everything matters; it all depends on what everyone is considering important. Given the name of this thread, I thought that adjusting gun settings to reflect as close as possible their historical specs, wasn't a pointless exercise after all, lol.

I will admit that some of the changes we have discussed with keysersoze are quite subtle, but in general I am sure you will notice how much our researches will practically affect gun's effectiveness. Drastically in some cases. Trust me at least this time :yep:

gap

03-14-13, 12:21 PM

You're probably right about recoil ties not being taken into account, but, as you said, we can solve all these problems with a stopwatch :yeah:

I am going to test it right away, by giving the deck gun an unusually long recoil time...

Just tested: recoil time is applied in game as expected (i.e. it gets added to cannon's reload time), though stock settings seem to disregard its effect on practical rate of fire :know:

volodya61

03-14-13, 12:22 PM

I will admit that some of the changes we have discussed with keysersoze are quite subtle, but in general I am sure you will notice how much our researches will practically affect gun's effectiveness.

I will try to see this during my practical exercises.. I promise.. :yep:

Drastically in some cases. Trust me at least this time :yep:

I always trust you, compare :03:

keysersoze

03-14-13, 12:36 PM

Seems like the part of Global Weapons mod, I mean Reworked Sub Guns, will never released.. :hmmm:
First tests I have done more than two months ago.. :)
Is it so important: reload time - 3.525 sec or reload time - 3.435 sec? :O:

Community is still waiting.. :timeout:
me too.. I am also waiting for when I can finally begin my part of our work..

As I told you a few days ago, nothing matters and everything matters; it all depends on what everyone is considering important. Given the name of this thread, I thought that adjusting gun settings to reflect as close as possible their historical specs, wasn't a pointless exercise after all, lol.

I will admit that some of the changes we have discussed with keysersoze are quite subtle, but in general I am sure you will notice how much our researches will practically affect gun's effectiveness. Drastically in some cases. Trust me at least this time :yep:

You make fair points Volodya :salute:. The problem is that the inconsistent and incomplete nature of the sources often makes it difficult to even make a good guess at the historical specifications. I would always prefer to have the most historical settings possible, but I will admit that the difference between 3.525 and 3.435 seconds is inconsequential :O:

Just tested: recoil time is applied in game as expected (i.e. it gets added to cannon's reload time), though stock settings seem to disregard its effect on practical rate of fire :know:

Thanks for taking the time to test it :up:

Do we have any more "controversies" to settle? Anything else to double-check for flak and deck gun settings?

gap

03-14-13, 12:40 PM

I will try to see this during my practical exercises.. I promise.. :yep:

Just tested the deckgun tweaked with historical trav/elev speeds (which are a bit lesser extreme than sober's ones, by the way)... practically unusable. I haven't yet recovered from the seasickness :doh:

I always trust you, compare :03:

sometimes I have the vague feeling that you are making fun of me, товарищ :hmmm:
:rotfl2:

gap

03-14-13, 12:47 PM

You make fair points Volodya :salute:. The problem is that the inconsistent and incomplete nature of the sources often makes it difficult to even make a good guess at the historical specifications. I would always prefer to have the most historical settings possible...

no one of us has ever fired those guns. Numbers are our only chance to reproduce them as closely as possible, and to get the feeling of using a real WWII weapon ;)

...but I will admit that the difference between 3.525 and 3.435 seconds is inconsequential :O:

...which by the way are just random numbers, invented by Voldya for making his arguments more "dramatic" :03: :O:

Thanks for taking the time to test it :up:

Do we have any more "controversies" to settle? Anything else to double-check for flak and deck gun settings?

no, as far as I am concerned. At least no controversies relative to their specs :up:

volodya61

03-14-13, 12:56 PM

Just tested the deckgun tweaked with historical trav/elev speeds (which are a bit lesser extreme than sober's ones, by the way)... practically unusable.

lesser than Sober's ones? :o IIRC Sober's elevation speed is 0.5, isn't it?

I haven't yet recovered from the seasickness :doh:

:haha:

sometimes I have the vague feeling that you are making fun of me, товарищ :hmmm:
:rotfl2:

:03: sometimes.. a little bit.. :O:

...which by the way are just random numbers, invented by Voldya for making his arguments more "dramatic" :03: :O:

not at all.. I took/saw these/similar values somewhere on the previous pages..

gap

03-14-13, 01:17 PM

lesser than Sober's ones? :nope: IIRC Sober's elevation speed is 0.5, isn't it?

I said lesser extreme, i.e. 1.5 deg/s. This is relative to elevation speed. As for traverse speed, sober kept the stock setting (it is 35 deg/s). In this case the historical value used by me (1.5 deg/s, same as elevation) is much more extreme.

Another thing I have noticed is that after changing max gun range, max range elevation angle, and max/min elevation angles, the calibration of the range scale of deckgun's gunsight, gets messed up. I will look for that scale within game grahics files and I will try to recaliber it while you are testing the other settings :hmmm:

:03: sometimes.. a little bit.. :O:

:-?

not at all.. I took/saw these/similar values somewhere on the previous pages..

man, how do you think Kriegsmarine scientist and engineers refined U-boat armements, making them one of the most feared war weapon ever? Even at tenth of second can make te difference for the greater of our beloved Nation :smug:
Little detail, many of the settings that we have been working on, are actually aimed to make those guns worst... :rolleyes: :O:

keysersoze

03-14-13, 01:56 PM

Just tested the deckgun tweaked with historical trav/elev speeds (which are a bit lesser extreme than sober's ones, by the way)... practically unusable. I haven't yet recovered from the seasickness :doh:
:rotfl2:

Is it impossible to track a target at 1.5 deg/sec? How about with AI firing?

volodya61

03-14-13, 02:20 PM

I said lesser extreme...

oops.. my bad habit to read inattentively and sometimes miss keywords.. :oops:

gap

03-14-13, 02:22 PM

Is it impossible to track a target at 1.5 deg/sec? How about with AI firing?

very hard: even in calm seas the gun swings up and down with predictable effects on the accuracy of its aim, and laying it for following moving targets is even harder. Waiting for the right timing (i.e. when the gan is better aligned) before firing is very important.

This is relative to manning the gun manually. I didn't test the new settings with AI gunners yet but, provided that they are programmed to wait for the best aim before firing (I just hope that they won't start firing randomly as soon as the gun is loaded), we can suppose that their rate of fire will be heavily affected by weather state. :sunny:

oops.. my bad habit to read inattentively and sometimes miss keywords.. :oops:

don't mention it: it is also my habit :rolleyes: :O:

volodya61

03-14-13, 02:31 PM

..(I just hope that they won't start firing randomly as soon as the gun is loaded)..

but sometimes they are.. unfortunately.. :nope:

don't mention it: it is also my habit :rolleyes: :O:

I know.. :yep: :O:

gap

03-14-13, 02:38 PM

but sometimes they are.. unfortunately.. :nope:

well, let's see what happens. For sure the deckgun won't be any longer an easy shortcut for getting tonnage, especially during mid-late war :yep:

I know.. :yep: :O:

misunderstandings are the salt of life :know:

volodya61

03-14-13, 02:43 PM

misunderstandings are the salt of life :know:

:sign_yeah:

gap

03-14-13, 02:54 PM

:sign_yeah:

almost finished updating/checking my tweaks. Seems that today will be an... historical day :O:

There is still unfinished stuff (especially assigned shells), but what we have got ready so far is good enough for you to start your tests. I will upload the files (including the list of changes) after dinner.

P.S: do you want me to add to the pack the tweaks required for testing the twin M42 (broken) FlaK? As long as you don't walk close to it, AI should be able to man and fire it ;)

volodya61

03-14-13, 03:01 PM

..but what we have got ready so far is good enough for you to start your tests. I will upload the files (including the list of changes) after dinner.

will wait..

P.S: do you want me to add to the pack the tweaks required for testing the twin M42 (broken) FlaK? As long as you don't walk close to it, AI should be able to man and fire it ;)

yes, please.. I will look at this gun more closer..

gap

03-14-13, 04:43 PM

will wait..

yes, please.. I will look at this gun more closer..

currently working to port its settings to EUF. I had originally done my changes over stock files (italian version)... give me half an hour please :)

volodya61

03-14-13, 04:57 PM

currently working to port its settings to EUF. I had originally done my changes over stock files (italian version)... give me half an hour please :)

better I make it by myself.. there are many changes in my EUF version.. just send me your changed files.. :yep:

gap

03-14-13, 05:06 PM

better I make it by myself.. there are many changes in my EUF version.. just send me your changed files.. :yep:

Okay, I will wrap my changes with the following labels:

;========= G A P S T A R T =========
;========== G A P E N D ==========

yet, you will need to change many counting numbers in UpgradePacks.upc. Since I have made already the work, are you sure you don't want to give up you custom EUF settings for the short time (so to speak ;)) required to test the guns?

P.S: I think I have just discovered how to change the standard ordinance loaded in each gun :03:

volodya61

03-14-13, 05:38 PM

Okay, I will wrap my changes with the following labels:

;========= G A P S T A R T =========
;========== G A P E N D ==========

:up:

yet, you will need to change many counting numbers in UpgradePacks.upc. Since I have made already the work, are you sure you don't want to give up you custom EUF settings for the short time (so to speak ;)) required to test the guns?

what for? I will just put changes to the end of the file..

P.S: I think I have just discovered how to change the standard ordinance loaded in each gun

not quite understood what did you meant :hmm2:

gap

03-14-13, 05:50 PM

:up:

what for? I will just put changes to the end of the file..

are you just sure that they don't have to be in numerical order? :hmm2:

not quite understood what did you meant :hmm2:

Do you remember that when you had removed AP shells from some guns, they still had AP shells as their standard ordinance, and that you had to wait for HE shells to be loaded before the gun could start firing? :03:

volodya61

03-14-13, 06:00 PM

are you just sure that they don't have to be in numerical order? :hmm2:

I don't think they should be in numerical order.. will try..

Do you remember that when you had removed AP shells from some guns, they still had AP shells as their standard ordinance, and that you had to wait for HE shells to be loaded before the gun could start firing? :03:

ah.. now I see.. that's great if you could change this..

gap

03-14-13, 06:31 PM

I don't think they should be in numerical order.. will try..

Okay, sorry for the delay... I was busy with some PM's :03:

ah.. now I see.. that's great if you could change this..

well at the end I found a few evidences that 20mm AP shells were included in U-boat outfit, and no evidence that they weren't used, so I decided to keep them. Nonetheless, setting the most commonly/most abundant shell types as standard ammunition could be a cool feature :yep:

Returning to my tasks now... :up:

keysersoze

03-14-13, 06:47 PM

Okay, sorry for the delay... I was busy with some PM's :03:

sorry about that :03:

gap

03-14-13, 06:54 PM

sorry about that :03:

not at all. My pleasure :D

Things are going to be funny :up:

keysersoze

03-15-13, 12:05 AM

I didn't have time to run systematic tests of the Flak guns, but I still wanted to get a sense of the changes. I ran four tests with our modifications and four tests without it. Here are the results.

Setup
U-boat: VIIC, novice crew, Turm IV, 2 x 20mm C/38 Zwilling, 37mm M42
Aircraft: Mosquito Mk. VI, 500 m altitude, 2000 m distance
Conditions: 12:00, calm seas, excellent visibility (default weather settings)

Reworked Guns Tests
Test 1: aircraft damaged on first pass, destroyed on second by C/38
Test 2: destroyed on second run [couldn't determine which gun delivered the fatal shot]
Test 3: damaged on second pass, destroyed on third by C/38
Test 4: undamaged on first pass, destroyed on second by C/38

Stock Tests
In all four tests, the Mosquito Mk. VI was destroyed on the first pass, before the C/38 Twins had to reload. As I'm sure both of you realized long ago, it's absurd how accurate the stock AA gunners are. It was news to me though :o

General Impressions
The M42 feels like the heavy AA gun it is. In stock testing, all the AA guns were trained on the plane by the time I managed to turn around after loading the mission. In the Reworked Guns version, I can see them working to track the target, especially the ponderous M42. I can't wait to see the SK C/30 struggle to keep up with fast-moving aircraft :03: The whole thing looks more natural to my admittedly untrained eye. I did not notice any obvious clipping problems with muzzle flashes or audio loops. The C/38 Zwillings seem much more effective than the M42, but that might just be due to the volume of fire they can produce. I didn't notice any horribly misplaced shots from any of the guns, but I might have missed something while being strafed by the British flyboy :O: Clearly, the changes have reduced the guns' accuracy, though they are still able to shoot down an aircraft with little problem.

Anyway, I know that's not the sort of comprehensive test you need to evaluate the mod, but it's all I had time for tonight. I'll try to do some more tomorrow after my first exam.

EDIT: I also clocked the C/38 Zwilling's reload time at about 14.8 seconds on average. The M42's was about 8 seconds. Keep in mind this is with a novice crew.

gap

03-15-13, 06:45 PM

Thank you Keiser for your detailed reports :up:
please look below fo some remarks:

Reworked Guns Tests
Test 1: aircraft damaged on first pass, destroyed on second by C/38
Test 2: destroyed on second run [couldn't determine which gun delivered the fatal shot]
Test 3: damaged on second pass, destroyed on third by C/38
Test 4: undamaged on first pass, destroyed on second by C/38

Seems that with our current settings the FlaK C/38 is much more effective than the M42 (by the way, I ma wondering if during your tests the M42 has ever managed to score a single hit). Incidentally, the C/38 is also the gun with the fastest elevation speed. This makes me to think that we need to reduce the difference between the fastest and the slowest gun, at least in therms of elevation rates.
Another aspect that we should take into account is that, even in real life, the bigger 37mm guns could have been more effective at medium/long range than at close range, in consideration of their worse handling and of their longer range. This leads to my next question: which firing order (close/medium/long range) had you issued during the tests?

Stock Tests
In all four tests, the Mosquito Mk. VI was destroyed on the first pass, before the C/38 Twins had to reload. As I'm sure both of you realized long ago, it's absurd how accurate the stock AA gunners are. It was news to me though :o

Not all the guns were equally accurate in stock game. The single C/30, for instance, was horribly out of pace, no matter sea state or crew veterancy level set through single mission options. The worst part is that their error was not random; they were uncalibrated and they fired regularly on top or below the target. Now, thanks to Volodya/Wamphyri's tweaks, all the guns are aiming correctely, but we have the opposite problem: we need to destabilize them, or planes won't pose any significant threat :-?

General Impressions
The M42 feels like the heavy AA gun it is. In stock testing, all the AA guns were trained on the plane by the time I managed to turn around after loading the mission. In the Reworked Guns version, I can see them working to track the target, especially the ponderous M42. I can't wait to see the SK C/30 struggle to keep up with fast-moving aircraft :03: The whole thing looks more natural to my admittedly untrained eye.

I am glad to hear that. It means that we are on the right direction. But as I told you before, now we need to finetune our settings (the game realities that Volodya was talking about a while back) :03:

I did not notice any obvious clipping problems with muzzle flashes or audio loops.

Okay, time to start replacing stock sounds with more varied sounds :up:

The C/38 Zwillings seem much more effective than the M42, but that might just be due to the volume of fire they can produce. I didn't notice any horribly misplaced shots from any of the guns, but I might have missed something while being strafed by the British flyboy :O:

Okay, this another good news, because, as I had wrote in my PM of yesterday, I had slightly modified Volodya's settings, and I was worried I could have done some mistake leading again to wrong aiming :up:

Clearly, the changes have reduced the guns' accuracy, though they are still able to shoot down an aircraft with little problem.

Yes we have still much to do, for making them lesser accurate (see above).

EDIT: I also clocked the C/38 Zwilling's reload time at about 14.8 seconds on average. The M42's was about 8 seconds. Keep in mind this is with a novice crew.

data\UPCDataGE\UPCCrewData\SpecialAbilities.upc:

;GUNNER - Passive abilities

[SpecialAbility 33]
ID=Ability-Boost-Guns
NameDisplayable=Ability-Boost-Guns-Name
Description=Ability-Boost-Guns-Description, Ability-Boost-Guns-Description, Ability-Boost-Guns-Description, Ability-Boost-Guns-Description, Ability-Boost-Guns-Description
Levels= 5
AbilityType=GunsAccuracy, GunsDamage, GunsRange, ShellDrag, ShellSpeed ;increase gun accuracy, damage and range (in percents)
AbilityValue= 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 24, 24, 24, 24, 24, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30

PointsRequirement= 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
AbilityRequirements= 0, 1, Ability-Boost-Guns, 1, 1, Ability-Boost-Guns, 2, 1, Ability-Boost-Guns, 3, 1, Ability-Boost-Guns, 4
LevelUpTree= 2, 3, 4, 5, 0
MoraleCost= 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
PointsCost= 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

AbylityActsIn= ALL

Duration=0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Cooldown=0, 0, 0, 0, 0

[SpecialAbility 34]
ID=Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time
NameDisplayable=Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time-Name
Description=Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time-Description, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time-Description, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time-Description, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time-Description, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time-Description
Levels= 5
AbilityType=GunsReloadTime ;reduce gun reload time (in percents)
AbilityValue= -10, -20, -30, -40, -50

PointsRequirement= 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
AbilityRequirements= 0, 1, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time, 1, 1, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time, 2, 1, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time, 3, 1, Ability-Reduce-Guns-Reload-Time, 4
LevelUpTree= 2, 3, 4, 5, 0
MoraleCost= 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
PointsCost= 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

AbylityActsIn= ALL

Duration=0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Cooldown=0, 0, 0, 0, 0

;GUNNER - Active abilities

[SpecialAbility 35]
ID=Ability-Active-Suppress-Fire
NameDisplayable=Ability-Active-Suppress-Fire-Name
Description=Ability-Active-Suppress-Fire-Description, Ability-Active-Suppress-Fire-Description, Ability-Active-Suppress-Fire-Description
Levels= 3
AbilityType=GunsReloadTime ;chance to kill enemy gunner per bullet and increases reload time (in percents)(missing??)
AbilityValue= -5, -10, -15

PointsRequirement= 0, 0, 0
AbilityRequirements= 0, 1, Ability-Active-Suppress-Fire, 1, 1, Ability-Active-Suppress-Fire, 2
LevelUpTree= 2, 3, 0
MoraleCost= 1, 2, 3
PointsCost= 2, 2, 2

AbylityActsIn= ALL

Activation=OnDemand
Duration=600, 600, 600
Cooldown=4320, 2880, 1440

data\UPCDataGE\UPCUnitsData\UnitParts*.upc (one file for each U-boat model in game):

[UnitPart 1.Compartment 1]
CompartmentType= 2
StatusActive= No
ID= VIIAConnWatch
NameDisplayable= Gun-Compartment-Name
Type=NULL
FunctionalType= FlakRoom
MechanicalCoef= 0.3
ElectricsCoef= 0
GunsCoef= 0.4 ;0..1
WatchmanCoef= 0.3
WatchStandingCoef= 0.048
MaintenanceCoef= 0.0144
RepairsCoef= 0.072
ReloadingweaponCoef= 0.072
SleepCoef= -0.12
LeadersSlots=0
CrewMembersSlots= 0
EffciencyDenominator=2
EffciencyDenominatorBS=2
Hitpoints=200
CrewExposure=0.5
EquipmentsExposure=0.1
WeaponsExposure=0.1
ExternalDamageZoneTypeID3D= 31
GUIPlaceHolderIndex=6
DamageDescription1= NULL, 0, 0.2, 0, 1, 1, Minor damage, 0, 0, NULL, 0, 0.2, 0.2
DamageDescription2= NULL, 0.2, 0.6, 0, 1, 1, Medium damage, 0, 0, NULL, 0, 0.2, 0.5
DamageDescription3= NULL, 0.6, 1, 0, 1, 1, Heavy damage, 0, 0, NULL, 0, 0.2, 1

The answer to our doubts regarding gun reload times and their accuracy could be in one of the above files. I am still struggling to undertand how their settings are applied in game, and if veterancy levels in single missions are roughly equivalent to passive ability levels in campaign.

Has anyone messed with those parameters before? you, Volodya? :hmm2:

keysersoze

03-15-13, 07:23 PM

Seems that with our current settings the FlaK C/38 is much more effective than the M42 (by the way, I ma wondering if during your tests the M42 has ever managed to score a single hit).

Yes, I think you're probably right that the M42 didn't score any hits. I was trying to pay careful attention to the 37mm tracers and did not notice any impacts, but my testing was not thorough enough to state this with certainty.

Incidentally, the C/38 is also the gun with the fastest elevation speed. This makes me to think that we need to reduce the difference between the fastest and the slowest gun, at least in therms of elevation rates.

Is changing elevation/training speed the only way to effectively control accuracy? You mentioned in your PM that there is a chance recoil_dist might affect accuracy. For flak guns, do you think this refers to the distance the bolt travels after firing one round and before another is chambered? I found this recoil distance for the C/30, as cited by our old friend Mirsolaw Skwiot:

average recoil distance: 33mm
max. recoil distance: 44mm

These numbers seem quite small so I really don't know what to make of them. I have unfortunately not been able to find information for the other guns yet.

Another aspect that we should take into account is that, even in real life, the bigger 37mm guns could have been more effective at medium/long range than at close range, in consideration of their worse handling and of their longer range. This leads to my next question: which firing order (close/medium/long range) had you issued during the tests?

The guns were set to fire at medium range for all tests. I agree that the M42 should have a range advantage over the 20mm guns. However, I have a suspicion that our SK C/30 range settings might be too high... :hmmm:

Now, thanks to Volodya/Wamphyri's tweaks, all the guns are aiming correctely, but we have the opposite problem: we need to destabilize them, or planes won't pose any significant threat :-?

It's an interesting dilemma. Do you an objective standard by which you are planning to measure the success of our testing? That is, how will we determine whether our guns are too accurate or not accurate enough?

Okay, time to start replacing stock sounds with more varied sounds :up:

You might want to double-check my report before starting collecting sound clips in earnest, as I have been known to be wrong :O: In any case, the 37mm is far too quiet, as this youtube clip of the SK C/30 indicates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJUuwhx4Xr4

Notice also how slowly the gun seems to track around 0:41 :03:

.....
Has anyone messed with those parameters before? you, Volodya? :hmm2:

I certainly haven't. I'm was also using the Reworked Abilities mod and the Equipment mod for the tests, in case they affect these parameters.

gap

03-15-13, 08:44 PM

Yes, I think you're probably right that the M42 didn't score any hits. I was trying to pay careful attention to the 37mm tracers and did not notice any impacts, but my testing was not thorough enough to state this with certainty.

I suspect that 37mm gun's laying/elevation speed need to be raised a bit, nonetheless can you please give a "fire at long range" order, the next time you test our settings?

Is changing elevation/training speed the only way to effectively control accuracy?

currently, yes.
In past, I and Volodya have been testing tolerance fator's effect, but without significant success. There are two of them, one for elevation and one for traverse. According to this old post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=191090#post191090) in SHIII subforum, tolerance factors should be sort of maximum gyrostabilization angles: the bigger their value, the more stabilized the gun, the more accurate its aim.

You mentioned in your PM that there is a chance recoil_dist might affect accuracy. For flak guns, do you think this refers to the distance the bolt travels after firing one round and before another is chambered?

I think so, and it should work the same way for cannons (except for the reloading mechanism, which indeed is not automatic). But I haven't ever messed with that setting; all I know about it, is what I (or anyone else for that matter) can deduce from its name. Its effect on gun accuracy is only my (vague) supposition. :yep:

I found this recoil distance for the C/30, as cited by our old friend Mirsolaw Skwiot:

average recoil distance: 33mm
max. recoil distance: 44mm

These numbers seem quite small so I really don't know what to make of them. I have unfortunately not been able to find information for the other guns yet.

The stock recoil distance setting for 20mm guns is 10 cm. I will make a test with the numbers provided by you, and see if anything changes. Anyhow, if you find other statistics regarding gun recoil distances, please post them here.

The guns were set to fire at medium range for all tests. I agree that the M42 should have a range advantage over the 20mm guns. However, I have a suspicion that our SK C/30 range settings might be too high... :hmmm:

Why do you think so?

These are the theoretical ranges, according to the sources I have consulted (including the information provided by you):

navweaps: 8,500 m @ 45 deg
wikipedia: 8,500 m @ 37.5°
navypedia: 8,500 m
your document: 8,500m @ 35.7°

They all agree on 8,500 m, despite some discrepancies on the elevation angle required for attaining the aforementioned range. Also notice that this is not the AA ceiling range, which was way shorter, nor the effective range in AA firing, that was even shorter. SH5 gun controllers allow just one setting, which is the maximum theoretical range. I ignore how accurately the game deduces the ceiling range from the latter, but in any case, there is a setting for limiting FlaK guns long, medium and close firing ranges. IIRC, the stock maximum range setting is 2,000 m, which is pretty close to the historical 37mm FlaK's maximum effective range :yep:

It's an interesting dilemma. Do you an objective standard by which you are planning to measure the success of our testing? That is, how will we determine whether our guns are too accurate or not accurate enough?

During our past tests, I an Volodya were comparing different results by reporting the numebr of rounds required to shoot down a plane, or the number of dive attacks the plane had performed before being downed. This was using the same test mission with the same weather/crew veterancy settings.

You might want to double-check my report before starting collecting sound clips in earnest, as I have been known to be wrong :O: In any case, the 37mm is far too quiet, as this youtube clip of the SK C/30 indicates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJUuwhx4Xr4

yes, I had seen that video before. Unfortunately I could not capture its audio due to the musical comment on the background (never before I had thought that I could have hated Mozart :shifty:), but IIRC I had also managed to find another video whose audio is "cleaner". :up:

Notice also how slowly the gun seems to track around 0:41 :03:

:yep: :up:

I certainly haven't. I'm was also using the Reworked Abilities mod and the Equipment mod for the tests, in case they affect these parameters.

good choice. EUF was anyway required, as I have included the settings for testing the M42 twin FlaK in our testing version of the mod, and the files I had modified were from TheBeast's mod. I was going to inform you on it, but at the last moment I have forgot to do it. :oops:

Answering to your question, yes both the mods mentioned by you contain the settings I was talking about in my previous post. I think we should try and play with them with the aim to reduce FlaK's accuracy and to reduced the excessive difference in reload times among trained and untrained crews (your estimated times seem to me abit excessive even for a rookie). :salute: