[WIP] Historical Guns Specs [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

gap

09-17-12, 09:29 AM

As announced in another thread, I've started collecting information on historical specs of both AI and human playable guns featured in game. If I manage to do it, this knowledge is going to be included in a mod that will introduce a general rebalance of armaments /ammo / zones and armour system in SH5. So far, this the detailed list of features I plan to implement:

Realistic guns specs:
- train and elevation min and max angles;
- train and elevation speeds;
- train and elevation dispersions;
- cyclic and practical firing rates (i.e. recoil and reload times);
- muzzle velocity;
- gun's max range;
- gun's additional drag coefficients (left/right, up/down and front/rear for guns selectable as U-boat upgrades).

Realistic ammo outfits for each gun:
- round types;
- number of round carried for each type;
- number of rounds held per magazine.

New shell definitions, reflecting different ammo used with different guns of the same caliber, with realistic damage figures:
- detonation range;
- min and max damage effects;
- armour penetration;
- min and max radius.

Reworked FX:
- different sounds for each of the main guns used in game (especially for sub's guns);
- if needed: improved/new GFX effects for guns and shells featured.

Reworked damage zones for ships and guns whose historical armour figures are known:
- new zone definitions with realistic armour settings;
- if needed: reworked/improved damage zones to reflect available historical data and expected sinking dynamics (including both vanilla and recently imported dat units).

New ship definitions, with different and realistic gun equipments for each of the nations that operated them:
- when needed: existing units cloned to reflect subclasses or different riggings/equipments of the same unit (for both GR2 and inported dat units);
- if needed: revised ship's specs to reflect available historical data and expected in game behaviour (for both existing GR2 and dat units and their clones);
- when needed: revised ship's equipment to reflect different armament outfits during the war and for different nations;
- cloned units assigned in roster to the nations that historically used them.

In future, I could decide to make similar changes to torpedo / depth charges / aircraft weapon's systems.

This is the list of mods that, with permission by their respective authors, my project should be based on for maximum compatibility with (and among) them:

Multiple UI's (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1332669&postcount=1) by TheDarkWraith
IRAI (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1436291&postcount=1) by TheDarkWraith
Fx Update (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1485167&postcount=1) by TheDarkWraith
Alternate Sinking Mechanism (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1861943#post1861943) by Bilge_Rat
Ship inertia (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1905432&postcount=1) by TheDarkWraith
AI Damage Control Patch (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1621039&postcount=1) by TheDarkWraith
Equipmen Upgrades Fix (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1636046&postcount=1) by TheBeast
Reworked Morale & Abilities (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1883408#post1883408) by Rongel
SH 5 Longer Repairs Equipment Upgrades Fix-version (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=197800&page=2) by Rongel
Additional Merchant Ships (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1481870&postcount=1) by Cerberus62
Historical Ship Equipment (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1504132&postcount=1) by Cerberus62
Open Horizons II (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1791496&postcount=1) by Zedi and Trevally
Mehr Traffic, Nationen und Schiffe (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1652560&postcount=1) by Uekel
Smaller Flags for Warships (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//showthread.php?p=1836528#post1836528) by Uekel

Moreover, selected features and fixes from the following old mods will be possibly included in the present mod (again, granted that permission to do so will be given by their original authors):

Wamphyri's Plane Attack Mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1309433#post1309433) by Wamphyri
Funelsmoke, Planes and Sounds (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1306223#post1306223) by AOTD_MadMax
Rückkehr der Asse (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1297685#post1297685) by AOTD_MadMax
Better and Realistic Flotation (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1316407#post1316407) by Arclight
Natural Sinking Mechanics (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=619183#post619183) (SH IV) by WernerSobe
Tracer Mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=666) (SH IV) by Von M
Gun Sound Muzzle Flash (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//showthread.php?p=1831779#post1831779) (SH IV) by Karle94

If you think that my list is missing any important mod that the present project might conflict with, or that shoud be included in it anyway, please let me know and I will get in touch with its author.

Indeed, I am also open to anyone wanting to co-work with me on this project and to any suggestion or complaint about pertinent aspects of the game that need still to be addressed.

I rely on your inputs, guys :yep:
:)

================================================== ========

EDIT:

this mod is still in its alpha stage. At this moment only few of the aforementioned aspects have been addressed with separate patches that will be merged in the final release of the mod. You can get their latest versions from the following links:

Rongel's Torpedo malfunctions test v 2
download link and realease notes available HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2011321&postcount=472)
NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LATEST TORPEDO FAILURE PATCHES BY TDW

Armaments & equipments patch v 0.2
download link and realease notes available HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1988650&postcount=96)

Thank you for testing! :salute:

Rongel

09-17-12, 10:34 AM

Wowzer!

That is a lot of stuff! Like we discussed in the other thread, I'm trying to get the torpedo malfunctions in order, so that can be my input. Currently the autumn looks very busy (and my own internet connection died...) but yep, count me in anyway!

Good luck Gap! This sounds really great! Start it easy that you don't get burnt out in the process! :salute:

Targor Avelany

09-17-12, 11:03 AM

Awesome, gap! Looks amazing and interesting. :yeah: :rock:
Does that include fixing the periscope overextention?

Wish I was able to help.

gap

09-17-12, 11:42 AM

Wowzer!

That is a lot of stuff! Like we discussed in the other thread, I'm trying to get the torpedo malfunctions in order, so that can be my input.

:yeah:

talkig about it: are you going to be able to set different chances depending on malfunction type and date?

Currently the autumn looks very busy (and my own internet connection died...) but yep, count me in anyway!

Torpedo malfunctions is an important aspect whose finetuning deserves the utmost attention and accurate historical data collection. Take your time on it!

Good luck Gap! This sounds really great! Start it easy that you don't get burnt out in the process! :salute:

Thank you mate, I will take your wise suggestion in the due account :up:

Awesome, gap! Looks amazing and interesting. :yeah: :rock:

Thank you too Targor :)

Does that include fixing the periscope overextention?

What's exactly the problem with the periscope? Never noticed it :hmm2:

Wish I was able to help.

You actually are, in many ways! :yep:

- you can help me and Rongel by providing us with your suggestions and ideas, based on your gaming experience;
- you can get involved in data research, something that will be never enough! :know:
- you can volunteer for beta testing, a boring task that I never really got accustomed to; :doh:
- if you have enough time, you can just pick one of the points listed in the first post that you would like to develop, and ask me for headups on where to start from for working on it. I will do my best for giving you the basics, but take in mind that I miself am in the low part of my learning curve. :03:

gap

09-17-12, 12:12 PM

A practical question:

what would you expect to be a realistic traverse and elevation speed for manually operated flak and deck guns? Should this speed be slower for twin/quad mountings than for single guns, due to the increased weight?

Those speeds will greatly affect the effectiveness of U-boat guns. Too bad, while there's a lot of information on power driven guns, I couldn't find any reference to manully trained/elevated guns on the web. Nevertheless I am sure that some naval history expert around here ( Sailor Steve are you there? :D) will be able to provide a reasonable extimation. :)

vlad29

09-17-12, 01:33 PM

Targor Avelany

09-17-12, 01:41 PM

:yeah:

What's exactly the problem with the periscope? Never noticed it :hmm2:

The periscopes (both obs and attack) used to be overextending (able to rise wwaaaaay too high). This is one of the things that REM's mod was fixing.

I haven't had a chance to check before I posted (still trying to figure out my CTD at approaching Keil fun and I was away entire weekend), but it might have been fixed in one of the mods that I have installed (primarely sober's list).

On the rest - after I fully move to the new computer and figure out the above mentioned problem, I'll definately help as much as I can :)

gap

09-17-12, 03:31 PM

Hi Gap, some info re. Your 1st post
I'm using the mod list which contains NewUI, Harbour addition, OHII, mtns (+fix), and this combination is not compatible by now with such popular mods as AI Sub Crew, Sub Exsaust, Sub Flags (with the first two it is 100% true). Uekel in his "Shleightfehrt'-mod "forced to coexist" AI Sub Crew and "mtns", but his :up: mega-mod is for CSP Magui interface mostly (problem with NewUI) .

So this is just for the info and to prevent You from possible problems in your venture:salute:.

Thank you Vlad, I'll dig in those mods, and see why they are not copatible with each other. Anyway I am 99% sure that with some patience they can be merged together :up:

The periscopes (both obs and attack) used to be overextending (able to rise wwaaaaay too high). This is one of the things that REM's mod was fixing.

I haven't had a chance to check before I posted (still trying to figure out my CTD at approaching Keil fun and I was away entire weekend), but it might have been fixed in one of the mods that I have installed (primarely sober's list).

On the rest - after I fully move to the new computer and figure out the above mentioned problem, I'll definately help as much as I can :)

Hi again Targor,

do you mean that persicopes are graphically extending over their housings or rather that they are way to long if compared with historical lenghts?

While I haven't ever heard of periscopes protruding from the sub for more than their actual lenght, the latter issue is a known vanilla inaccuracy that was fixed by U-boat historical specifications, back in the days. Though not being sure about it, I think this mod is now included in some of TDW's mods, and it is anyway not compatible with some more recent mods.

Another mod dealing with periscope lenghts, as remarked by you, is indeed REM. Why don't you use it? :hmm2:

Madox58

09-17-12, 04:21 PM

THE_MASK

09-17-12, 04:25 PM

Can you get rid of the hideous yellow tracer color :down:

gap

09-17-12, 04:57 PM

Check when pasteing in historical numbers that an old problem does not surface.

A Mod for SH3 with Historical numbers caused a 'Snow effect' from some shells and Guns.

When a Gun fired at to high of an upward angle?
We saw Snow flake type debris falling at times.
An angle of 60 or more was found to be the cause.

But it was only once in awhile that the situation happened.

Hi privateer, nice to hear from you again!

Thank you for your suggestion, I'll take mental note of it. I know historical data have to be taken warily, and accomodated with some adjustements to fit the limited SH physical engine. :up:

Can you get rid of the hideous yellow tracer color :down:

yep, fixing those cartoony yellow trails shouldn't be a big deal. But what color would be more plausible for WWII tracer ammunition? :hmm2:

Okay, just found a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq4xnRGZMOI) and a picture about modern tracers:

http://www.arl.army.mil/www/pages/578/image.2.large.jpg

What do you think about that colour?

THE_MASK

09-17-12, 05:31 PM

I like that color . I could never find where the color comes from . I didnt look too hard though .

gap

09-17-12, 05:39 PM

I like that color . I could never find where the color comes from . I didnt look too hard though .

I think I've just found where those colors reside. Look in particles.dat for Shell_trace_Fast and Bullet_trace_Fast fast particle generators, under BitmapParticles => Color :03:

I guess we can change similarly any color related to cannon flashes, bullet explosions, etc. :yep:

PS: possibly I can create some custom particle and Baza_FX dat files containing the new FX, for avoiding compatibility issues with other mods dealing, like FX Update, with those stock files. I wonder if my new custom files would be loaded in memory though, I have to experiment with it :hmm2:

Rongel

09-18-12, 03:44 AM

:yeah:

talkig about it: are you going to be able to set different chances depending on malfunction type and date?

Yes, there are options for early war and later. As far as I know it they work OK. Values work also for different malfunction types (duds, premature explosion, circle runners, depth keeping, and angle troubles). One thing that doesn't seem to work is the different dud rates at a different angles. There is three angle settings defined but one of them seems to be broken. For example, angles through 90-60 and 30-0 work but the middle one 60-30 has problems. But I think we can get somekind of working compromise with that.

gap

09-18-12, 05:01 AM

Yes, there are options for early war and later. As far as I know it they work OK. Values work also for different malfunction types (duds, premature explosion, circle runners, depth keeping, and angle troubles).

Cool! :up:

One thing that doesn't seem to work is the different dud rates at a different angles. There is three angle settings defined but one of them seems to be broken. For example, angles through 90-60 and 30-0 work but the middle one 60-30 has problems. But I think we can get somekind of working compromise with that.

Wasn't the angle of inpact a factor taken into account by TDW's dud torpedo patch, for calculating the chance of missed detonations? :hmm2:

We should ask him when he will be back from his business trip.

Captain73

09-18-12, 06:16 AM

gap

09-18-12, 07:13 AM

I read in books that the German submariners also attacked ships from 20mm Flak 30! You can in SH5 make destroyed by artillery calculation of the enemy on the merchant ship? I could destroy the resistance of the enemy as in the real events!
Sorry if I write is not in the appropriate topic and for my English!! :oops:
With respect Captain73! :salute:

Ships sunk by flak gun? :hmmm:
They had to be smal tugboats or sailboats.

Anyway, you can manually aim at ships with the flak, and they may take damage or not, depending on their armor level. What you cannot do is ordering your crew to do the same. This behaviour is probably hardcoded in the exe or scripted somewhere else. :yep:

gap

09-18-12, 07:16 AM

Bump:

A practical question:

what would you expect to be a realistic traverse and elevation speed for manually operated flak and deck guns? Should this speed be slower for twin/quad mountings than for single guns, due to the increased weight?

Those speeds will greatly affect the effectiveness of U-boat guns. Too bad, while there's a lot of information on power driven guns, I couldn't find any reference to manully trained/elevated guns on the web. Nevertheless I am sure that some naval history expert around here (Sailor Steve are you there? :D) will be able to provide a reasonable extimation. :)

Any answer? :D

Currently we can fully rotate our flaks by 360 deg orizontally and 180 deg vertically in just one second. Is this okay for you guys?

Captain73

09-18-12, 08:30 AM

Ships sunk by flak gun? :hmmm:
They had to be smal tugboats or sailboats.

Anyway, you can manually aim at ships with the flak, and they may take damage or not, depending on their armor level. What you cannot do is ordering your crew to do the same. This behaviour is probably hardcoded in the exe or scripted somewhere else. :yep:

You did not understand me! I'm talking about the destruction of the resistance of the commercial courts! The destruction of guns on merchant ships of the enemy! :)

gap

09-18-12, 09:03 AM

You did not understand me! I'm talking about the destruction of the resistance of the commercial courts! The destruction of the guns! The destruction of gun fire on the boat with the merchant ships of the enemy! :)

In other words you are asking if enemy ship's AA guns can be destroyed? If so, the answer is yes, they can. :yep:

Even DP guns and big cannons on battleships can be theoretically destroyed though, due to their thicker armor, doing it can take many lucky shots of armor pierceng rounds.

The only equipments that couldn't be detroyed in vanilla game were the searchlights and a couple of guns (cannot remember wich ones exactly right now), but this flaw is now fixed. See this thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=197680&page=6) :up:

Captain73

09-18-12, 09:21 AM

In other words you are asking if enemy ship's AA guns can be destroyed? If so, the answer is yes, they can. :yep:

Even DP guns and big cannons on battleships can be theoretically destroyed though, due to their thicker armor, doing it can take many lucky shots of armor pierceng rounds.

The only equipments that couldn't be detroyed in vanilla game were the searchlights and a couple of guns (cannot remember wich ones exactly right now), but this flaw is now fixed. See this thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=197680&page=6) :up:

:yep:
Thanks Gap! :salute:
All right! Sorry that I missed this information! :hmmm:

gap

09-18-12, 11:10 AM

:yep:
Thanks Gap! :salute:
All right! Sorry that I missed this information! :hmmm:

Better asking than remaining in doubt :up:

gap

12-31-12, 01:11 PM

Nice experiment, V13dweller, can you please upload somewhere your mission and post here the link? :up:

I was experimenting with the Mission editor again, and I have found that the Scharnhorst and Deutschland Pocket battleships main guns actually don't fire:hmmm:
They track the targets, but they don't fire, the ship only uses it's secondary weapons, like the smaller single barrel cannons.

good finding :up:

both the Scharnhorst and the Deutschland do use 28 cm/54.5 (11") SK C/34 triple guns as main battery. Unlike other guns, they are equipped with an 'unknown' type of shells, i.e. a shell type not listed in Shells.dat. Evidently a blunder by devs, but it won't be difficult fixing it. I will post a fix here as soon as possible ;)

It's quite strange, I put all of the German battleships in a line, and some British battleships in a line, the Germans won, after a long battle, the Schleswig-Holstien seemed to have been attacked the least, and made most of the kills (Strange for a per-dreadnaught)
The Bismarck charged in and make short work of the destroyer screen guarding the battleships, took some damage but came out alive.

Yes, I am not surprised of that: SH5 weapons/armors system requires a general rebalance :yep:

If you want the statistics of battle, the British had HMS Suffolk, Hood, Barham and Ark royal. 3 Kent heavy cruisers, 2 A class destroyers, 4 flower corvettes, and 2 Black swan sloop's. The Germans had KM Tirpitz, KM Scharnhorst, KM Deutschland, KM Konigsberg KM Koln 4 type 34 destroyers AMC Penguin AMC Komet and KM Emden.
What a battle it was. :)

I can imagine :D

I did my best to make it as fair as possible, because the pocket battleships don't use their main guns.

Also the Auxiliary cruisers did not maneuver to attack the enemy :stare:
They just did that zig-zag course non-destroyers do when enemies are nearby.

That's correct. In real life auxiliary cruisers wouldn't have standed a chance against the big pieces of the British Navy. What was left to them is to run away as fast as they could :haha:

Sepp von Ch.

12-31-12, 01:20 PM

Looking forward gap.

V13dweller

12-31-12, 01:27 PM

gap

12-31-12, 02:44 PM

I have also noticed, that the AI seems to prioritize what it aims for, for example, I had the Bismarck, the Scharnhorst, and the Schleswig-Holstien and the Deutschland battleships lined up against some battleships of the British, and while the Bismarck (As we know has a lot of armour and health) was taking all the hits while the old Schleswig-Holstien was using it's powerful 28cm SK L/40's to take out the enemy battleships at a distance.

Seems to me the plot of Sink the Bismarck! :haha:
Have you read this book or watched the movie that was based on it?

Out of jokes, AI strategies are outside my reach. You should ask TDW on it, when he will be back. By the way, did you have IRAI enabled when you carried out your test?

Also, do ships have limited ammunition, and can they guns get 'destroyed' as in, not functional?

Yes ammunition outfits are limited and fully configurable from guns_radars_01.sim => ammo_storage, and guns can be destroyed (if not, let me know and I will try and see to fix any idestructible gun).

Also notice that shell counters are reset once an unit gets outside visual range. In other words, any unit get an automatic refit if it gets temporarily outside your world :03:

Because in my mission, the Konigsberg light cruiser got it's 3 round salvo right near the turret on a Hood Battle cruiser, an explosion occurred, and the front turrets seemed to stop tracking, while the rear cannons are still spitting out 15 inch'ers at a faster than life speed. (Real speed being 2 rounds per minute)

Yes, more realistic rates of fire are something I want to attain with my upcoming mod. I see you are well-versed in warhips and their armaments. If you like it, I'll send you a spreadsheet I've created with all the information I was able to collect from the web and from the game, for you to check its data :)

V13dweller

01-01-13, 01:09 AM

Seems to me the plot of Sink the Bismarck! :haha:
Have you read this book or watched the movie that was based on it?

Out of jokes, AI strategies are outside my reach. You should ask TDW on it, when he will be back. By the way, did you have IRAI enabled when you carried out your test?

No, not at that time, I as the player was not actually taking part, I was just using external camera, usually when im at periscope depth im rammed by a friendly ship or hit by a rogue 15 inch'er :haha:, plus there is an army if Corvettes a Sloops and Destroyers.

Yes ammunition outfits are limited and fully configurable from guns_radars_01.sim => ammo_storage, and guns can be destroyed (if not, let me know and I will try and see to fix any idestructible gun).Because in this situation, the Bismarck seemed to have caused a massive explosion on the deck of the Hood, and after that the front guns were no longer tracking the enemy, but the rear guns were still trying to, so they ship pulled to it's side so it's secondary weapons could do their work.
Also when it come to the AI stratergy, they seem to want to sink the most valuable ship first, the Germans seem to make the Ark Royal Swiss cheese before attacking the Hood who is trying to sink the Bismarck, (Good thing the ark Royal goes down so quick)
Another statement along the lines of strategy, the Carl Peters Fleet Tender, (I put there because I was convinced it was a warship until a closer inspection :haha:) charges in and seems to not be attacked, and makes quite alot of damage because the other ships are after the Bismarck or Scharnhorst.
More important info, I just found out that the 'Admiral Hipper' is the same as the Scharnhorst, it doesn't use it's main guns. :hmmm:
I found this when I was comparing heavy cruisers, the Kent beat the Hipper, because the Hipper would not use it's main guns, "Scandal, Corruption!":stare: I will call a re-match if that problem gets fixed.

Off topic a bit, do you have any idea what the LSMFPD ship is? I spawned one in the editor, and it was this tiny little rectangular motor boat that is unarmed, I am not sure what it is, if anyone could clarify, that would be helpful.

gap

01-01-13, 02:59 AM

Because in this situation, the Bismarck seemed to have caused a massive explosion on the deck of the Hood, and after that the front guns were no longer tracking the enemy...

This s okay: your test proves that big guns are taking damage, as supposed :up:

...but the rear guns were still trying to, so they ship pulled to it's side so it's secondary weapons could do their work.

So ships change their tactic depending on the guns they have available. Cool, but you didn't answer my question: are you using IRAI during your tests?

Also when it come to the AI stratergy, they seem to want to sink the most valuable ship first, the Germans seem to make the Ark Royal Swiss cheese before attacking the Hood who is trying to sink the Bismarck, (Good thing the ark Royal goes down so quick)
Another statement along the lines of strategy, the Carl Peters Fleet Tender, (I put there because I was convinced it was a warship until a closer inspection :haha:) charges in and seems to not be attacked, and makes quite alot of damage because the other ships are after the Bismarck or Scharnhorst.

Okay, maybe I am not the best strategist around, but leaving out the "Carl Peters accident", AI strategy makes sense to me :yep:

More important info, I just found out that the 'Admiral Hipper' is the same as the Scharnhorst, it doesn't use it's main guns. :hmmm:
I found this when I was comparing heavy cruisers, the Kent beat the Hipper, because the Hipper would not use it's main guns, "Scandal, Corruption!":stare: I will call a re-match if that problem gets fixed.

After having a look at her main gun's settings, I am quite sure that the Admiral Hipper was returning fire, but you couldn't notice it: those 4.1" german guns are missing their muzzle flash effect. Another oversight by devs that I hope to fix with the upcoming patch :yep:

Off topic a bit, do you have any idea what the LSMFPD ship is? I spawned one in the editor, and it was this tiny little rectangular motor boat that is unarmed, I am not sure what it is, if anyone could clarify, that would be helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinef%C3%A4hrprahm
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/landingcrafts/mfp/index.html

the Konigsberg light cruiser got it's 3 round salvo right near the turret on a Hood Battle cruiser, an explosion occurred, and the front turrets seemed to stop tracking, while the rear cannons are still spitting out 15 inch'ers at a faster than life speed. (Real speed being 2 rounds per minute).

The above remark by you prompted me to check Hood's main guns. Are you sure that it was firing at such an high rate?

Reload time of 15" Mk. I guns, fitted aboard the Hood, is set to 30 sec. This figure should be consistent with the expected rate of fire of ca. 2 rounds per min per muzzle :hmmm:

What crew ranking was the Hood given in your mission? Can you post that mission?

V13dweller

01-01-13, 03:22 AM

I was not using IRAI, and the mission is hardy complete, it has no objectoves, it is just two lines of opposing faction ships set to charge at each other, and all the ships were set to the default "Veteran" except the Auxiliary cruisers, they were set to elite, I was expecting a different response from them if i changed the difficulty, and I do not know how to upload a mission.
And thanks for the info on the landing craft.
I can not be sure on the fire speed from the Hood I was focused on the Konigsberg at that time, and to the distance I saw multiple explosions coming from the guns, but for all i know, that could have been one gun firing slower maybe? I will look into that later, as with the Hipper.

gap

01-01-13, 03:39 AM

I was not using IRAI...

You should ;)

...and the mission is hardy complete, it has no objectoves, it is just two lines of opposing faction ships set to charge at each other...

Your mission is more than we need for testing purposes. I could create one myself, but I want to make sure that we are talking about the same stuff :yep:

and all the ships were set to the default "Veteran" except the Auxiliary cruisers, they were set to elite, I was expecting a different response from them if i changed the difficulty...

Can you make me a favour? You should disable your mission, open its misge file in notepad, and downgrade Hood's crew ranking (look for the CrewRating setting within Hood's section). After doing so, reenable the mission, load it and check if the rate of fire of her guns is affected by your changes :)

and I do not know how to upload a mission.

https://www.rapidshare.com/ :up:

gap

01-01-13, 04:13 AM

Looking forward gap.

here it is: gap - armaments & equipments patch (http://www.mediafire.com/?ainb46anbzuoia9)

This patch should:

add 3 new types of shell to game: 11" AP, 11" HE and 11" AA; the new shells were given intermediate settings between their homologue of 8 and 14 inches of caliber;

fix the issue with the 28 cm (11") SK C/34 guns mounted on Scharnhorst and Deutschland pocket battleships, that in stock game were set to use an "unknown" type of shell; the wrong shells are now replaced with the new 11" AP and HE shells;

replace the 14" AP and HE shells so far fired by the 28 cm (11") SK L/40 guns (Deutschland class battleships), with more appropriate 11" shells;

fix the issue with the 10.5 cm (4.1") SK C/33 gun, mounted on many German capital ships and cruisers, that was missing its muzzle flash effect.

The patch includes as well my 'undestructible searchlights fix'. Follow this link for further details:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=197680

V13dweller

01-01-13, 04:14 AM

You can change the crew from "poor, novice, competent veteran to elite" all within the editor.

gap

01-01-13, 04:16 AM

You can change the crew from "poor, novice, competent veteran to elite" all within the editor.

Yes, either method is okay :up:

V13dweller

01-01-13, 05:00 AM

V13dweller

01-01-13, 05:11 AM

And also, good work on the getting the guns to work on our good friends, the pocket battleships :D

Trevally.

01-01-13, 05:19 AM

Here is another mission:up:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190978

gap

01-01-13, 07:23 AM

I hope this works, it will appear in Historical Missions as a mission with no name and the date will be the 1st of the 1st 1940.

Link;
https://rapidshare.com/files/817150794/New%20SH5%20Campaign%20Project%20(3).misge;

I hope it works, also do not try and alter the outcome of the fight, because both the convoy's speeds are set to 15 knots, and I have not tried or tested what happens if you do so, because it is a test, there are no objectives or ways to finish.

Hope it works, if it does, enjoy the fight.:D

Thank you V13dweller, I'll have a look at it later today :salute:

And also, good work on the getting the guns to work on our good friends, the pocket battleships :D

It is a test, like your mission. Try it and keep us informed on the outcomes, please :)

Here is another mission:up:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190978

Good one, Trevally :up:

V13dweller

01-01-13, 07:58 AM

I installed your mod, and it looks much better with the 105mm guns on the Germans ships having muzzle flash and the sound effects, but the Dido light cruiser's turrets do not have muzzle flash, and because the King George V ship shares that turret, they also do not have muzzle flash our a sound, seeing your good work on the German guns, I think you could make the Dido's guns work properly. :up:

V13dweller

01-01-13, 11:03 AM

One note for my scenario, it is NOT complete, it has no objectives, no victory conditions, it is just a demonstration used for testing mods for the ships involved.

gap

01-01-13, 11:16 AM

I installed your mod, and it looks much better with the 105mm guns on the Germans ships having muzzle flash and the sound effects...

Good :up:
what about the 28 cm guns? Are they firing now?

but the Dido light cruiser's turrets do not have muzzle flash, and because the King George V ship shares that turret, they also do not have muzzle flash our a sound, seeing your good work on the German guns, I think you would make the Dido's guns work properly. :up:

Yes, I suspected it :know:

I've copied all the SH5 guns' stock settings into a spreadsheet, and I can see the (many :-?) mistakes made by devs, without need of actually playing the game. Nonetheless, you are providing me with valuable empiric evidences of what I can only guess being broken. Keep up you great testing work. :up:

The first patch was sort of a proof of concept, since it was focused into fixing a variety of different bugs, rather than fixing all of them. The remaining bugs will be hopefully fixed with the next patch.

Talking about the 5.25" Mark I guns, fitted aboard Dido class cruisers and, as secondary armaments, on the King George V class battleships, their problem is very similar to the one that was affecting German 105 mm guns: they were assigned a... 5 inch AP shell as muzzle flash effect, instead of a reference to a proper fx (!) :doh:

Exactly the same happens with several other guns. This seem to me too a blatant and recurring anomaly for being considered a simple oversight, and I am still wondering if devs didn't make it on purpose (for what reason? :hmm2:).

We will discover it with the next patch I will release! :salute:

One note for my scenario, it is NOT complete, it has no objectives, no victory conditions, it is just a demonstration used for testing mods for the ships involved.

Don't worry about that. The most active forum members here are used to this kind of missions: they are used as tutorial missions and are often included in mods for testing purposes :)

volodya61

01-01-13, 12:09 PM

Happy New Year Gap! :Kaleun_Party:

The first patch was sort of a proof of concept, since it was focused into fixing a variety of different bugs, rather than fixing all of them. The remaining bugs will be hopefully fixed with the next patch.
....
We will discover it with the next patch I will release! :salute:

Hope you announce next patch because current patch (gap - armaments & equipments patch) I have just seen first time..
Previously used/tested your searchlights fix only..

gap

01-01-13, 12:55 PM

Happy New Year Gap! :Kaleun_Party:

Best wishes for a prosperous 2013 to you to, mate :)

Hope you announce next patch because current patch (gap - armaments & equipments patch) I have just seen first time..
Previously used/tested your searchlights fix only..

At the current step I won't advertise very much my gun patches. They are just quick fixes that I need for testing what can be fixed with my limited knowledge. Nonetheless I highly appreciate and encourage any help, suggestion, testing, or criticism by the concerned ones. So stay tuned on this channel, please!

If there is enough interest, I will develop further my work and eventually release it as a full mod. See the first post of this thread for some details on my work plan :sunny:

volodya61

01-01-13, 01:12 PM

So stay tuned on this channel, please!

I'm always here :salute:
How can I help?

If there is enough interest, I will develop further my work and eventually release it as a full mod. See the first post of this thread for some details on my work plan :sunny:

:yeah:

Looking forward!

Rongel

01-01-13, 01:21 PM

Please keep working on this Gap if you have time, sounds great! :yeah:

I have too noticed that the ships attack strategy is sometimes a bit odd, they don't fire at the closest vessel, so one destroyer can charge in and cause a big damage to the enemy and be relatively safe. But I guess there is no way to edit the behaviour without exe modding?

I promised to help this project with the torpedo dud-values, but currently I'm in a big hurry, so there is not so much time, let's see what happens... Some work is already done. One of the biggest issues is now that duds seem to work with the GR2 ships, but never on imported .dat ships, before TDW's fixes it was the other way around.

gap

01-01-13, 03:43 PM

I'm always here :salute:

Thank you sir, you support is much appreciated :yep:

How can I help?

In many ways. You can pick one of the points listed in the first post, or just choice a related aspect that I didn't think of initially (as Rongel did), and start developping it.

You don't need to be an "expert modder" (I for one am not): I think the hardest part is not actually editing files (this is easily done, and anyone with the needed time can learn doing it) but rather collecting reliable information, converting the raw information into game settings, balancing and matching the new settings so that they will interact realistically, testing the settings in game once we think we got a satisfactory result, adjusting them again if required, and so on.

The information I've collected so far is contained in this excel spreadsheet (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?htnbngcyqwtu8ac).
Its 'guns settings' worksheet contains an abstract of the main stock settings, compared (in each second row) with alternative and (I hope) more accurate settings that are deduced from the 'guns characteristics' worksheet. As you can see many spaces are left blank, as I miss information on many specs. You could help me finding the missing data, or at least extimating the most likely figures for filling the empty spaces, and you could as well apply the suggested settings, and test them in game.

Same goes for collecting multimedia resources, such as guns/shell sounds to be included in the mod, and pictures/real footage to get inspiration from, for making the mod not only realistic but also enjoyable to eyes and ears.

Last but not least, the cornerstone at the base of the above mentioned balancing process, is a better understanding of how the various settings are applied in game, and how they interact with each other.
Is gun's rate of fire affected by weather, fatigue, unit's ranking, etc? Is there a settings for increasing/decreasing aim accuracy independently for each gun? Is the same aim accuracy affected by crew ranking, wind, fog, time of the day, etc? to which range/impact angle is the armor penetration of each shell relative? Does it change (and if yes, how) when range / impact angle changes? This is a quick sample of the questions I wasn't able to find an answer to, so far :doh:

Answering at least some of them would greatly speed up the development of the mod, and make it better.

Anyone wanting to help me in unraveling those gordian knots is very welcome!

Please keep working on this Gap if you have time, sounds great! :yeah:

Thank you mate, as you can see, I am trying to make disciples for the great cause :D :haha:

I have too noticed that the ships attack strategy is sometimes a bit odd, they don't fire at the closest vessel, so one destroyer can charge in and cause a big damage to the enemy and be relatively safe. But I guess there is no way to edit the behaviour without exe modding?

:hmm2:
At least in part, those issue are possibly to be solved via AI scripting. In any case, the answer to your question is a 3 letters word:

TDW :O:

I promised to help this project with the torpedo dud-values, but currently I'm in a big hurry, so there is not so much time, let's see what happens...

Real life takes the precedence. The SH5 community owes you a lot already. Just do what you can :up:

Some work is already done. One of the biggest issues is now that duds seem to work with the GR2 ships, but never on imported .dat ships, before TDW's fixes it was the other way around.

:dead: :wah:

Hopefully, one day not too far away, we will be able to port any SH3/4 imported unit to GR2 format without major headaches. Have you seen this thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1980746#post1980746) :03:

Sepp von Ch.

01-01-13, 05:09 PM

here it is: gap - armaments & equipments patch (http://www.mediafire.com/?ainb46anbzuoia9)

This patch should:

add 3 new types of shell to game: 11" AP, 11" HE and 11" AA; the new shells were given intermediate settings between their homologue of 8 and 14 inches of caliber;

fix the issue with the 28 cm (11") SK C/34 guns mounted on Scharnhorst and Deutschland pocket battleships, that in stock game were set to use an "unknown" type of shell; the wrong shells are now replaced with the new 11" AP and HE shells;

replace the 14" AP and HE shells so far fired by the 28 cm (11") SK L/40 guns (Deutschland class battleships), with more appropriate 11" shells;

fix the issue with the 10.5 cm (4.1") SK C/33 gun, mounted on many German capital ships and cruisers, that was missing its muzzle flash effect.

The patch includes as well my 'undestructible searchlights fix'. Follow this link for further details:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=197680

Thank you VERY much gap! I'll try it now!:Kaleun_Periskop:

gap

01-01-13, 05:41 PM

Thank you VERY much gap! I'll try it now!:Kaleun_Periskop:

Thank you to Josef, let me know :)

volodya61

01-01-13, 05:55 PM

In many ways. You can pick one of the points listed in the first post, or just choice a related aspect that I didn't think of initially (as Rongel did), and start developping it.

OK.. realizing that English is not my native language, it's too complicated for my understanding today.. :D I will read/understand it tomorrow.. :salute:

V13dweller

01-01-13, 09:21 PM

Good :up:
what about the 28 cm guns? Are they firing now?

Yes, they are working.
:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Very good job.
This mod is very helpful :D
I thank you for your hard work.
Now what to do next? I might recreate the sinking of HMS Rawalpindi, Where Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sink HMS Rawalpindi because the captain of the ship didn't want to surrender to the Germans.
Maybe not, Ill keep looking for idea's.
Also, do the torpedo tubes on ships actually work? I have never seen then work, if they do.

gap

01-02-13, 08:38 AM

OK.. realizing that English is not my native language, it's too complicated for my understanding today.. :D I will read/understand it tomorrow.. :salute:

My bad: sometimes I myself can't manage understanding my own english written texts :oops: :D

Yes, they are working.
:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

:up:

Very good job.
This mod is very helpful :D
I thank you for your hard work.

Thank you too my friend for your precious assistance, but the real work has yet to come: the previous patch was just a quick and dirty fix ;)

Now what to do next? I might recreate the sinking of HMS Rawalpindi, Where Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sink HMS Rawalpindi because the captain of the ship didn't want to surrender to the Germans.
Maybe not, Ill keep looking for idea's.

I hope to release today the next patch fixing the remaining buggy guns. I'll tell you what units have to be tested, if you want to keep helping me :)

Also, do the torpedo tubes on ships actually work? I have never seen then work, if they do.

I really don't know, but good question anyway! Can anyone answer it?

V13dweller

01-02-13, 09:51 AM

I hope to release today the next patch fixing the remaining buggy guns. I'll tell you what units have to be tested, if you want to keep helping me :)
I would be happy to test more of your weapon fixes when you release them. :)

I am going to get some ships close enough to each other to see if they will use the torpedoes, but right now, one has sunk the other before they get close enough to use them :D

volodya61

01-02-13, 09:55 AM

My bad: sometimes I myself can't manage understanding my own english written texts :oops: :D

It's not your fault.. blame my sick head.. :D

I really don't know, but good question anyway! Can anyone answer it?

:hmmm: Maybe it's just a decoration?

V13dweller

01-02-13, 10:42 AM

I believe now that the torpedo tubes are decorations, I placed a Konigsberg class light cruiser 400 meters (Minimum distance for the standard G7a torpedo to detonate) and the tube racks did not track the enemy ship, the ship just maxed the engines, moved to a safe distance, then the 3 turrets just tracked to the ships and sent it to the bottom by normal means.

I think, under my opinion, it is for decoration purposes only.

gap

01-02-13, 12:01 PM

I would be happy to test more of your weapon fixes when you release them. :)

Good! I an not sure if I will be on time for releasing the next update today, but stay tuned anyway! :up:

I am going to get some ships close enough to each other to see if they will use the torpedoes, but right now, one has sunk the other before they get close enough to use them :D

:hmmm: Maybe it's just a decoration?

I believe now that the torpedo tubes are decorations, I placed a Konigsberg class light cruiser 400 meters (Minimum distance for the standard G7a torpedo to detonate) and the tube racks did not track the enemy ship, the ship just maxed the engines, moved to a safe distance, then the 3 turrets just tracked to the ships and sent it to the bottom by normal means.

I think, under my opinion, it is for decoration purposes only.

Yes, I could hardly believe it, but lamentably you both are right... :-?

Unlike other ship armaments, torpedo launchers don't have a wpn_* controller assigned in guns_radars_01.sim. Even worst, after having a quick glance at the available SH weapons controllers, I couldn't find any special controller designed for working with the torpedo launcher. Here's the full list of them:

wpn_BoldsLauncher
wpn_Cannon
wpn_DCRack
wpn_Hedgehog
wpn_Kgun
wpn_Searchlight
wpn_SubTorpedoSys

As you can see, the closer we can get to a torpedo launcher is the wpn_SubTorpedoSys controller, which I doubt will work on ships.

Nonetheless, I remember that in SH3 or 4 they managed to mimic a working torpedo launcher by using a dummy gun which fired dummy shells. If I remember correctly, the trick was making it to spawn a torpedo in place of a flash effect every time it fired its armless rounds. This method had several limitations, but at least it worked. I'll try looking for this mod, and see if the same can be done in SH5. :yep:

In the meanwhile I would appreciate if someone could explain to me how deck-mounted torpedo tubes do work. I don't know anything on this topic: do they track their target like a normal gun do (train and elevation)? Are the torpedoes they fire equipped with gyroscopes? etc.

gap

01-02-13, 10:14 PM

new alpha version of the patch available here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?927qswrl3urhwr2

What is new:

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the US 5" (12.7 cm) Mk. 12 gun (single mount Mk. 30), used on Fletcher class destroyers;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the US 5" (12.7 cm) Mk. 12 gun (twin mount Mk. 28), used on North Carolina class battleships;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the US 5" (12.7 cm) Mk. 12 gun (twin mount Mk. 22), used on Somers class destroyers;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the Italian 152 mm (6") Model 1926/1929 gun (twin turret), used on Giussano (Bartolomeo Colleoni) and Montecuccoli classes light cruisers;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the British 5.25" (13.4 cm) Mk. I gun (twin mount), used on King George V class battleships (including Duke of York), and Dido class light cruisers;

fixed a missing setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the British 6" (15.2 cm) BL Mk. XXII gun (twin mount), used on Nelson class battleships.

Previous version:

added 3 new shell definitions for 11" AP, HE and AA ammunition, with intermediate damage, damage radius, and armour piercing settings between 8" and 14" shells of the same type;

fixed a wrong ammunition setting that prevented from firing the German 28 cm (11") SK C/34 gun (three-gun turret), used on Scharnhorst and Deutschland classes pocket battleships; the gun is now firing the newly introduced 11" AP and HE shells;

14" AP and HE shells replaced with more correct 11" ammunition of the same type for the German 28 cm (11") SK L/40 gun (double-gun turret), used on Deutschland class battleships;

fixed a missing setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the German 10.5 cm (4.1") SK C/33 gun (twin mount), used on Bismark class battleships, Scharnhost and Deutschland classes pocket battleships, and Admiral Hipper class heavy cruisers.

V13dweller

01-03-13, 12:13 AM

The hedgehog mortar spigot? I have never seen that used before, I have only seen the depth charge racks and depth charge throwers used before. :hmmm:

SixthFall

01-03-13, 01:31 AM

Keep up you great testing work. :up:

Will there be cake?

The hedgehog mortar spigot? I have never seen that used before, I have only seen the depth charge racks and depth charge throwers used before. :hmmm:

I swear I saw something about those working in-game. humph, i shall try to find it.

SixthFall

01-03-13, 01:38 AM

In the meanwhile I would appreciate if someone could explain to me how deck-mounted torpedo tubes do work. I don't know anything on this topic: do they track their target like a normal gun do (train and elevation)? Are the torpedoes they fire equipped with gyroscopes? etc.

From what I found, the tubes only track horizontally, then launch the torp out at the target. The firing controls appear to be accsessed on the tube itself. Also, it would appear the torpedos have their own gyros.

Check this very cool link out!!
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/ddtubes/index.htm

V13dweller

01-03-13, 03:27 AM

By any chance, is it possible to disable the depth charge racks on the destroyers? Because I still have not managed to get any destroyers to use their hedgehog. I was thinking, if the ship cannot use it's depth charges, it would be forced to use hedgehog.

V13dweller

01-03-13, 03:43 AM

Also, the destroyer should use it's hedgehog above using the depth charges, because the hedgehog is a much more effective anti-submarine weapon. The hedgehog had a 25% kill rate, while the depth charge had a 7%, as we can see, these odds are in the hedgehogs favor, so the hedgehog might not actually work within this game.:hmmm:

Trevally.

01-03-13, 04:57 AM

Yes - The hedgehogs do work:yep:

Try testing with a DD hat has late war equip.
here is part of the equip loadout for the BlackSwan

;Cerberus62 NFF_Black_Swan loadout definition
[Equipment 1]
NodeName=M01
LinkName=4In_double_MkXVI_turret_GB
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19431231

[Equipment 2]
NodeName=M01
LinkName=Hhog
StartDate=19440101
EndDate=19451231

V13dweller

01-03-13, 05:14 AM

1944? The stock game does not go that far, so is this a mod? or was it disabled on purpose by the developers? or activated by Open Horizons?

Trevally.

01-03-13, 06:00 AM

1944? The stock game does not go that far, so is this a mod? or was it disabled on purpose by the developers? or activated by Open Horizons?

That was just one ship - there are many others.
The point I was making was that you can check the equip file for each ship to see if they have them and from when.
Then you can test in missions

gap

01-03-13, 08:12 AM

Will there be cake?

:haha:

yes, cake and candies for all the good and helpful children, and coal for the bad ones. Don't you believe it? look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befana) :O:

http://digilander.libero.it/PensieriInVolo/gifbefane/befana.gif

From what I found, the tubes only track horizontally, then launch the torp out at the target. The firing controls appear to be accsessed on the tube itself. Also, it would appear the torpedos have their own gyros.

Check this very cool link out!!
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/ddtubes/index.htm

Yes, valuable doc indeed :up:
You deserved your piece of cake :D

By the way, I've found the SHIV mod that I was mentionig yesterday:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1138520#post1138520

It looks like TDW too has dealt with the same issue in SHIII:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126216

Dunno why, but I was sure that ship mounted torpedo tubes were already working in SH5, with no need of any mod :shifty:

gap

01-03-13, 08:53 AM

The hedgehog mortar spigot? I have never seen that used before, I have only seen the depth charge racks and depth charge throwers used before. :hmmm:

Also, the destroyer should use it's hedgehog above using the depth charges, because the hedgehog is a much more effective anti-submarine weapon. The hedgehog had a 25% kill rate, while the depth charge had a 7%, as we can see, these odds are in the hedgehogs favor, so the hedgehog might not actually work within this game.:hmmm:

I swear I saw something about those working in-game. humph, i shall try to find it.

Yes - The hedgehogs do work:yep:

Yes, as remarked by SixthFall and Trevally, hedgehogs should work flawlessy in SH5. They get available by date. Stock settings are as follows:

Buckley class destroyer escorts equipped with hedgehogs from 02/04/1943 on
A & B and Town classes destroyers, from 01/06/1943 on
Evarts class destroyer escorts, from 01/09/1943 on
Clemson class destroyers, Black Swan and bittern class sloops, from 01/01/1944 on
V & W class destroyer, from 01/03/1944 on

If you want to test them in game you should create a custom mission with one or more of the above units, and set the mission date accordingly.

On a side note: the only type of depth charge projector not working in SH5 in an early model of K-gun. Look here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//showthread.php?p=1837160#post1837160) for a workaround devised by Cerberus62

gap

01-03-13, 08:58 AM

Try testing with a DD hat has late war equip.
here is part of the equip loadout for the BlackSwan

;Cerberus62 NFF_Black_Swan loadout definition
[Equipment 1]
NodeName=M01
LinkName=4In_double_MkXVI_turret_GB
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19431231

[Equipment 2]
NodeName=M01
LinkName=Hhog
StartDate=19440101
EndDate=19451231

1944? The stock game does not go that far, so is this a mod? or was it disabled on purpose by the developers? or activated by Open Horizons?

That was just one ship - there are many others.
The point I was making was that you can check the equip file for each ship to see if they have them and from when.
Then you can test in missions

OHII extends the duration of SH5 campaign to May 1945. You should give it a try: it is definitely worth it! :yep:
Anyway you can set your custom missions to any date within Sep/39-May/45, with not need of installing any mod :up:

V13dweller

01-03-13, 09:29 AM

I have been using open horizons II for quite a while.:)

gap

01-03-13, 10:15 AM

I have been using open horizons II for quite a while.:)

Excellent :up:

Let me know if you find anything wrong after installing the latest patch. I am especially concerned about 5" Mk 12, 152 mm model 1926/29, and 5.25" Mk I guns.

When you get time for it, you should check if, after my fix, those guns are still firing their shells and whether targets are taking damage from them or not. Fingers crossed :)

V13dweller

01-03-13, 10:38 AM

Let me know if you find anything wrong after installing the latest patch. I am especially concerned about 5" Mk 12, 152 mm model 1926/29, and 5.25" Mk I guns.

What guns are these from? Because I can test them if I know what ship they are from.

gap

01-03-13, 11:10 AM

What guns are these from? Because I can test them if I know what ship they are from.

check post #55 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1987377&postcount=55) ;)

V13dweller

01-03-13, 12:25 PM

The guns on the Italian battleship, I have never tested them, I will look into them later.

gap

01-03-13, 12:32 PM

The guns on the Italian battleship, I have never tested them, I will look into them later.

Ok, no problem.
For what I could see from their settings, they had a similar issue as the other guns missing muzzle blast effects. It should be fixed now :yep:

V13dweller

01-04-13, 12:59 AM

gap

01-04-13, 02:05 AM

I have a problem, I am trying to make a mission to test the guns on the Italian shps, but all the ships keep spawning with 2 inside each other, and they all explode because they are clipping in each other.

I am not sure how to prevent this. It never seemed to happen before.
All of a sudden this problem appeared, and now, every scenario I make, has this problem, If this problem is not solved I cannot make anymore scenario's you Gap.

A while ago I read here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1563776#post1563776) about the issue you are experiencing, and I am also sure I had it once or twice during my first attempts with mission editor, though I can't remember what fixed it.

Have you validated your latest missions? Buggy missions shouldn't pass the test, and you should be given a report on where the problem resides.

If validator doesn't give you any useful clue, try following my basic step by step tutorial (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1972950&postcount=47) on mission editing as carefully as you can. Possibly you've read it already, but do it again and, I am sure, your problem will vanish as swiftly as it appeared ;) :up:

Keep me informed :)

Trevally.

01-04-13, 05:13 AM

If you upload your mission, I can have a look at it to see what is wrong:yep:

V13dweller

01-04-13, 06:10 AM

I believe I have solved the problem, I think that the year of the convoy's leader had either past, or was to early, I ended up testing it, and the two Italians battleships used their guns, and strangely, they were sending out a rain of anti aircraft fire at a destroyer that passed nearby. :haha:

gap

01-04-13, 11:01 AM

I believe I have solved the problem, I think that the year of the convoy's leader had either past, or was to early,

:up:

I ended up testing it, and the two Italians battleships used their guns....

Do you mean the Bartolomeo Colleoni light cruisers? Can you confirm that their main gun's blasts are actually provoking damage to enemy targets?

and strangely, they were sending out a rain of anti aircraft fire at a destroyer that passed nearby. :haha:

This is Italian folklore: I am sure that their crews were still celebrating the new year :woot: :D

V13dweller

01-04-13, 11:43 AM

Oh you were talking about the cruisers? I was testing the battleships :doh:

gap

01-04-13, 11:53 AM

Oh you were talking about the cruisers? I was testing the battleships :doh:

yes the Condottieri/Giussano class cruisers :yep:

in Sea folder it is named 'NCL_Bartolomeo' after the name of RM Bartolomeo Colleoni: one of the ships belonging to the class

V13dweller

01-04-13, 12:19 PM

I just tested both of the 'Light cruisers' and the "Di Guissano Light cruiser" Fired it's main guns once, then it was just charged at the Black Swan Sloop before it sent the cruiser to the bottom.

And an off topic question here, does the Montecuccoli light cruiser have a Sonar? Because it has a single depth charge rack, and without a Sonar, trying to sink a submarine with depth charges would be a waste of time.:hmm2:

gap

01-04-13, 01:07 PM

I just tested both of the 'Light cruisers' and the "Di Guissano Light cruiser" Fired it's main guns once, then it was just charging at the Black Swan Sloop before it sent the cruiser to the bottom.

I am assuming tha you have tested the Giussano and Montecuccoli light cruisers vs. the Brit Black Swan. Am I correct?
So, who sunk who? Was the sloop taking damage from the Italian 6 inches batteries? :06:

And an off topic question here, does the Montecuccoli light cruiser have a Sonar? Because it has a single depth charge rack, and without a Sonar, trying to sink a submarine with depth charges would be a waste of time.:hmm2:

No, dunno in RL, but in SH5 it doesn't. You can check yourself ship sensor equipments by opening (in notepad) the .sns file of any unit.

It is my intent to review the equipment (including guns and sensors) of all the available units, and to correct any historical inaccuracy by adding/removing/replacing them when needed.
I am currently working on the Appalachian/Mount MCKinley class amphibious command ships. I will post soon an update of my work for you to test it :up:

volodya61

01-04-13, 02:42 PM

How can I help?
In many ways.

Sorry Gap, I can't help you right now.. :oops:

I decided to work on my mods-pack as you and Trevally advised in MMM's thread.. more precisely on its adaptation, i.e. English version.. there is only Russian version now..
I find out it easier for me to adapt my mods-pack than to continue work on MMM..

Something like - My Mods Pack (MMP) or My Current Mods Folder (MCMF) :D :haha:

Trevally.

01-04-13, 02:53 PM

gap

01-04-13, 06:08 PM

Sorry Gap, I can't help you right now.. :oops:

I decided to work on my mods-pack as you and Trevally advised in MMM's thread.. more precisely on its adaptation, i.e. English version.. there is only Russian version now..
I find out it easier for me to adapt my mods-pack than to continue work on MMM..

This is the best bad news you could have delivered to me :up:
You can always help me when you finish converting your mega pack :D

Something like - My Mods Pack (MMP) or My Current Mods Folder (MCMF) :D :haha:

what about a more captivating title? we need for a short, trenchant catchphrase. Something new, but summarizing whatever has been done in the last 20 or so years in the field of naval simulations :hmmm:

What do you think of: "Grey War Horizons of the Hunter Wolves Coming from the Silent Depths of the Dangerous Open Atlantic Waters". In short: GWHHWCSDDOAW or, if you prefer "Hunters from the Depth" :D

volodya61

01-04-13, 06:21 PM

You can always help me when you finish converting your mega pack :D

I promise I will.. :)

what about a more captivating title? we need for a short, trenchant catchphrase. Something new, but summarizing whatever has been done in the last 20 or so years in the field of naval simulations :hmmm:

I don't think it's necessary to the product that will change once a month.. probably more often..

What do you think of: "Grey War Horizons of the Hunter Wolves Coming from the Silent Depths of the Dangerous Open Atlantic Waters". In short: GWHHWCSDDOAW

:har: :haha:

gap

01-04-13, 06:57 PM

I promise I will.. :)

Thank you, whenever you want! :salute:

Hope I won't take away your motivation with my bad english, the next time :O:

Rongel

01-04-13, 07:13 PM

What do you think of: "Grey War Horizons of the Hunter Wolves Coming from the Silent Depths of the Dangerous Open Atlantic Waters". In short: GWHHWCSDDOAW"

A good, bold suggestion! Inspirated by gap, my suggestion would just be Silent Atlantic Water Hunter Wolves!

But all the best working on it, good luck! :salute:

gap

01-04-13, 07:20 PM

A good, bold suggestion!

Glad to know that you appreciate my blunt writing style, mate. :smug:

Having the title ready, I suppose that what remains to me is expanding it a bit into a full novel :O:

V13dweller

01-05-13, 12:05 AM

The Di Guissano ship fired it's main guns ONCE,:hmmm: I am not sure if they even hit the Black swan sloop, but after the cruiser fired it's main guns once, it stopped, then the Black Swan Sloop sunk in, then went after me. (The spectator:D)

What do you think of: "Grey War Horizons of the Hunter Wolves Coming from the Silent Depths of the Dangerous Open Atlantic Waters". In short: GWHHWCSDDOAW or, if you prefer "Hunters from the Depth" :D
:k_rofl:

A bit off topic, is it possible to set an British ship to be under German allegiance? Because I want to simulate spoils of war.

Echolot

01-05-13, 04:19 AM

is it possible to set an British ship to be under German allegiance?

Copy it's cfg-file in data/Roster from British/Sea to German/Sea and place with ME2.

:hmmm:

Regards.

Echolot.

gap

01-05-13, 08:52 AM

The Di Guissano ship fired it's main guns ONCE,:hmmm: I am not sure if they even hit the Black swan sloop, but after the cruiser fired it's main guns once, it stopped, then the Black Swan Sloop sunk in, then went after me. (The spectator:D)

Only once.... :hmmm: that's weird indeed

- What was your mod soup when you carried out this test?
- Have you tried launching the same mission without enabling my latest patch? Does it make any difference?
- Montecuccoli light cruisers mount the same guns as the di Giussano, have you put at least one of them in the same mission? Do they behave the same way?
- Fletcher class destroyers' 5" single mount guns, North Carolina class battleships' 5" twin mount guns, Somers class destroyers' 5" double mount guns, King George V class battleships' and Dido class light cruisers' 5.25" twin mount guns, feature the same changes as the italian 6" gun. Have you tested them as well?

A bit off topic, is it possible to set an British ship to be under German allegiance? Because I want to simulate spoils of war.

Copy it's cfg-file in data/Roster from British/Sea to German/Sea and place with ME2.

Exactly :yep: :up:

V13dweller

01-05-13, 09:51 AM

The Dido light cruisers guns fire, but the seem to fire quite fast:hmmm:
The Montecuccoli Cruiser fire normally, It tracks and shoots, but the Di Giussano fires once, then stop shooting, I will run the test again, I will put both of the cruisers in the same mission to see if they both work properly.

V13dweller

01-05-13, 10:03 AM

I am not sure what happened before, but the ship seems to be shooting normally again :o.
I don't know how to respond to this incident.

gap

01-05-13, 11:17 AM

The Dido light cruisers guns fire, but the seem to fire quite fast:hmmm:

yes I see. Reload time for the 5.25" Mk I gun (Dido class main batteries) is set to 1.5 sec, i.e. a rate of fire of 40 rounds per minute per muzzle. I will increase this time to 8.6 sec, giving a more realistic rate of fire of about 7 rpm.

I will post an update of the patch fixing the above issue in a matter of minutes :up:

The Montecuccoli Cruiser fire normally, It tracks and shoots, but the Di Giussano fires once, then stop shooting, I will run the test again, I will put both of the cruisers in the same mission to see if they both work properly.

I am not sure what happened before, but the ship seems to be shooting normally again :o.

Good! :up:

I don't know how to respond to this incident.

as usual, they are sending us old equipment, poor ammunition, unprepared crews... damn Regia Marina :-? :nope:

volodya61

01-05-13, 11:32 AM

offtopic

Gap, did you saw this post - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1988421&postcount=10

my apologies :oops:

gap

01-05-13, 11:36 AM

quick update of the patch to v 0.2:

http://www.mediafire.com/?6tpc3e3gkbx9txj

What is new:

corrected the rate of fire of the British 5.25" (13.4 cm) Mark I (twin turret) gun from 40 to 7 rpm per muzzle; gun used on King George V class battleships and Dido class light cruisers.

Previous version:

v 0.1:

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the US 5" (12.7 cm) Mk. 12 gun (single mount Mk. 30), used on Fletcher class destroyers;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the US 5" (12.7 cm) Mk. 12 gun (twin mount Mk. 28), used on North Carolina class battleships;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the US 5" (12.7 cm) Mk. 12 gun (twin mount Mk. 22), used on Somers class destroyers;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the Italian 152 mm (6") Model 1926/1929 gun (twin turret), used on Giussano (Bartolomeo Colleoni) and Montecuccoli classes light cruisers;

fixed a wrong setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the British 5.25" (13.4 cm) Mk. I gun (twin mount), used on King George V class battleships (including Duke of York), and Dido class light cruisers;

fixed a missing setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the British 6" (15.2 cm) BL Mk. XXII gun (twin mount), used on Nelson class battleships.

v 0:

added 3 new shell definitions for 11" AP, HE and AA ammunition, with intermediate damage, damage radius, and armour piercing settings between 8" and 14" shells of the same type;

fixed a wrong ammunition setting that prevented from firing the German 28 cm (11") SK C/34 gun (three-gun turret), used on Scharnhorst and Deutschland classes pocket battleships; the gun is now firing the newly introduced 11" AP and HE shells;

14" AP and HE shells replaced with more correct 11" ammunition of the same type for the German 28 cm (11") SK L/40 gun (double-gun turret), used on Deutschland class battleships;

fixed a missing setting that prevented muzzle flash effects for the German 10.5 cm (4.1") SK C/33 gun (twin mount), used on Bismark class battleships, Scharnhost and Deutschland classes pocket battleships, and Admiral Hipper class heavy cruisers.

gap

01-05-13, 11:43 AM

offtopic

Gap, did you saw this post - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1988421&postcount=10

my apologies :oops:

Thank you Volodya, yes I saw it. Iam going to reply in the appropriate thread :up:

Trevally.

01-05-13, 11:44 AM

patch v 0.2:

Nice:Kaleun_Cheers:

V13dweller

01-05-13, 11:51 AM

Thanks for the patch on the Dido cruisers 5.25", now when it's up against a Cruiser of Germany, your not blinded by a hail of shells so thick you can barely see the sun.:haha:

An off topic question once again, does the Graf Zeppelin carrier from Open Horizons have any armour? because it was destroyed by the AA guns on an Illustrious class Aircraft carriers, If it doesn't, could someone patch it to have the armour of normal ships.

gap

01-05-13, 11:54 AM

Nice:Kaleun_Cheers:

Just for testing Trev:

there are so many of these errors that I wouldn't call this tiny update a major advancement in the realism of the game. Right now I want just to see how the new settings are applied in game. Probably they will need for a further finetuning, but once the method will be consolidated, creating a global realism/bug fixing patch will be easier and a lot faster :up:

Thanks for the patch on the Dido cruisers 5.25", now when it's up against a Cruiser of Germany, your not blinded by a hail of shells so thick you can barely see the sun.:haha:

have you tested it already? :o :)

V13dweller

01-05-13, 12:38 PM

Indeed I actually just have.:up:

gap

01-05-13, 01:52 PM

Indeed I actually just have.:up:

...and what? Are they firing at a more reasonable rate now (slowly enough for the Regia Marina lazy gunners to stand a little chance at least)? :D

what do you want me to fix next? :sunny:

volodya61

01-05-13, 05:04 PM

...what do you want me to fix next? :sunny:

Maybe it's time to solve/fix the following issue?

- Machine guns (both aircraft and ship mounted) are overpowered in SH5.

gap

01-05-13, 07:57 PM

Maybe it's time to solve/fix the following issue?

Originally Posted by gap
- Machine guns (both aircraft and ship mounted) are overpowered in SH5.

Yes, I think so, but it is not so easy :D

I will put it simple: the issue could be fixed either by decreasing hp damage/armor piercing of 20mm shells, or by increasing our hull's hp/armor. Which method is correct? I could have added much more parameters, but I think my example is rendering the idea anyway ;)

I need for real life objective measurements to start with, for adjusting them to the SH5 world. Some of them aren't to be found (how to convert the concept of "hit points" in real therms? :O:), whereas other data possibly exist (i.e. shell's armor piercing capacity and blast radius), but they are incomplete or hardly found.

All in all, I think I will start from warship's armors. It shouldn't be difficult collecting this information. Armor piercing values for many guns/shells are also available or can be rougly extimated, but I need to understand if in SH5 this parameter is affected by distance, as in real life :hmmm:

Any suggestion?

V13dweller

01-05-13, 11:40 PM

The ship "Graf Zeppelin" can be destroyed by the 40mm anti air gun, that means aircraft an destroy it without even dropping a bomb, I tested that before, I placed the Graf Zeppelin in open water steaming at full speed to Germany, and the aircraft were shredding it with their machine guns.:hmmm:

It seems only actual Warships can resist the 40mm round.

V13dweller

01-06-13, 12:08 AM

I just ran another test, the Graf Zeppelin wrecked a Liberty Cargo, And a Rawalpindi Armed Merchant Cruiser.:-?
With nothing but 40mm anti air guns, they seem to shred anything in their path, including U-boats.
The Liberty Cargo was sunk before it could even aim it's 4 Inch'ers at the carrier.

At this rate, the 15 inch'ers on Battleships will be replaced with batteries of 40mm machine guns.:har:

Hmm, I wonder if there is a mod, that could loadout my Submarine with this kind of Ordnance...:hmm2:

gap

01-06-13, 02:28 AM

The Graf Zeppelin is not among the ships originally included in game. You are probably referring to the carrier featured in OHII, which actually is a copy of the stock Bogue class escort carrier. On a side note, Uekel's MTNS (More traffic, nations and ships) comes with a more accurate model of the carrier, which was inported from SHIII and which (correctly) isn't equipped with any gun.

I will revise non-stock units and equipments only after having finished reworking the vanilla ones. Nonetheless, your suggestion is putting me in the right direction. If needed I will reduce Bogue's armaments, and I will make low caliber guns into lesser deadly weapons for good :yep:

At this rate, the 15 inch'ers on Battleships will be replaced with batteries of 40mm machine guns.:har:

Hmm, I wonder if there is a mod, that could loadout my Submarine with this kind of Ordnance...:hmm2:

:haha:

P.S: I've just found this good post by TDW about damage modding: :up:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//showpost.php?p=1794756&postcount=3

I suggest all the concerned ones to have a look to it. Pity he ignores how shell's armor piercing at any given distance is calculated from the AP values stored in shells.zones :hmm2:

V13dweller

01-06-13, 02:57 AM

gap

01-06-13, 08:30 AM

Indeed, the Graf Zeppelin is just a Bogue Escort Carrier, but I do think that the 40mm guns should not be able to damage enemy ships. It still could damage uboats, I m not sure what caliber their armour could resist.
It is weird that the 40mm can wreck ships in seconds.

I've found the following armor penetration figures relative to a 40 mm Bofors gun firing 1.960 lbs. (0.889 kg) AP shells against "Class B" homogeneous armor, at an angle of inpact of 90 deg:

source: NavWeaps (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.htm)
2.70" (69 mm) @ 0 m
1.20" (30 mm) @ 1,829 m
0.60" (15 mm) @ 3,658 m
0.45" (11 mm) @ 5,486 m

I ignore what was the armor of HMS Rawalpindi, but likewise normal merchant ships (British merchant raiders weren't armored ships), it had to be very basic. Therefore, I think, it is likely that a 40mm gun cold have standed some chance against her, especially at close range. But not in a matter of seconds anyway.

Take a medium armored warship, instead: Dido class light cruisers, for instance. They had a typical figure of 3" (76 mm) of armor at their belt. Even at very close range a Bofors woudn't have had any chance of scratching their hull :yep:

Let's see game settings now: bofors guns are set to fire either the 40mm_AP_Shell or 40mm_AA_Shell, whose AP parameter on turn is set to 20 and 10 respectively. On the other hand, Rawalpindi and Dido's main ArmorLevels are set to 20 and 30 in their respective zon files. This is confirming our expectations: Rawalpindi can take damage from 40 mm AP shells fired ad close range, but not Dido. ;)

V13dweller

01-07-13, 04:53 AM

Is there anything else you want me to test? Any weapons?:hmm2:

And does anyone have a download link for Cerberus's Historical weapons because the link on his page doesn't work for me.

gap

01-07-13, 07:08 AM

Is there anything else you want me to test? Any weapons?:hmm2:

I am currently working on the Appalachian class USS command ships, the way Cerberus62 did with his "Historical Ship Equipment" mod (giving them correct armament configurations and specs, historical camouflages, etc) but developping his idea a bit further. ;)
Moreover, I will rework 20/40 mm guns according to their historical specs.

I will post an update of my work asap. Let me know in the meanwhile if you find any bug/mistake that needs for a quick fix :salute:

Talking on AA guns specs, I've asked several times on the thread about realistic manual training/elevation rates for 20/40 mm guns (Oerlikon, Bofors, and german Flaks). No one was able to help me. Do you happen to have any idea? These are the current in game settings:

SPEEDS (deg/sec)
____________________
GUN TRAINING | ELEVATION

Oerlikon 20 mm 60 90
(single and double
pedestal, AI)

Flak 20 mm C/30 360 180
(single pedestal, playable)

Flak 20 mm C/38 360 180
(double pedestal, playable)

Flak 20 mm C/38 360 180
(double pedestal, with and
w/o shield, playable)

Flak 20 mm C/38 360 90
(quad mount vierlig,
playable)

Flak 20 mm C/38 30 30
(quad mount vierlig, AI)

Flak SK C/30U 3.7 cm/L83 45 75
(single mount, playable)

Flak M42 3.7 cm/69 45 60
(single and twin mount,
playable)

Bofors 40 mm 26 24
(single, twin and
quad mount, AI)

Are they fair? I doubt it... :hmmm:

And does anyone have a download link for Cerberus's Historical weapons because the link on his page doesn't work for me.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1989454&postcount=37 ;)

V13dweller

01-07-13, 08:33 AM

Thank you for the download link, I have been searching for quite a while for this.:up:

gap

01-07-13, 09:03 AM

Thank you for the download link, I have been searching for quite a while for this.:up:

It was only my duty. After all we are business fellows in the development of this mod, isn't it? :D

P.S: do you have any suggestion on the table I've posted below? I understand that some compromises have to be done for playability, but it is normal for you that the same gun (the vierlig 20 mm) is aimed from 3 to 12 times faster on our U-boat than aboard AI ships?

V13dweller

01-07-13, 09:11 AM

I personally think that the AI and the U-Boat's guns should perform the same, and I have noticed that the U-Boats anti-air guns do not explode in the air like normal Flak's would. It could be that the U-boat is only equipped with 20mm AP rounds, and no 20mm AA rounds.

gap

01-07-13, 09:54 AM

I personally think that the AI and the U-Boat's guns should perform the same

Okay, so should I increase the aiming speed of ship mounted AA guns, or decrease it for U-boat mounted Flaks? Or maybe we should find a compromise midway?

In other words: how good are you/your crew at shooting planes? When you man the Flaks yourself, do you feel their handling to be realistic? And how is ship's AI against planes? Do they shoot them down way too easily, or they have an hard time doing it? :hmmm:

and I have noticed that the U-Boats anti-air guns do not explode in the air like normal Flak's would. It could be that the U-boat is only equipped with 20mm AP rounds, and no 20mm AA rounds.

You are right, the AA guns selectable as U-boats upgrades are set to fire just AP shells. I can easily make them to fire any type of shell, but are you sure that German 20 mm shells were exploding in the air?

According to navweps (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_20mm-65_c30.htm), the 2 cm C30 / C38 fired two types of shell:

API: armor piercing projectiles that included a tracer (Incendiary)
HEI: high explosive projectiles that included an Incendiary

Outfits were about 75% HEI and 25% API

Anyway no mention is made about the presence of a time fuze. Personally, I think they just ignited after being fired, letting a trace behind them, and exploding only if they actually hit a target. I can be wrong though.

Something that might be worth is trying wether sub Flaks can be assigned more than one type of shells, like the deckgun. :up:

volodya61

01-07-13, 10:18 AM

In other words: how good are you/your crew at shooting planes? When you man the Flaks yourself, do you feel their handling to be realistic? And how is ship's AI against planes? Do they shoot them down way too easily, or they have an hard time doing it? :hmmm:

From my experience, when I shoot the aircraft myself it's hard to me..
But when the AI-ships do it, it's very easy and fast.. they immediately force down all the crafts which I request in the Mediterranean..

V13dweller

01-07-13, 10:39 AM

I do think that the Player's U-Boat crew doesn't seem to take out planes very often, I usually just take over to stop them from spending all of my ammunition.:hmmm:

gap

01-07-13, 10:42 AM

From my experience, when I shoot the aircraft myself it's hard to me..
But when the AI-ships do it, it's very easy and fast.. they immediately force down all the crafts which I request in the Mediterranean..

Thank you Volodya. What about your crew? Are they trained gunners, or they are just as bad as you at downing planes? :O:

I am wondering wether, paradoxically, a slower handling of the AA guns wouldn't make the aiming more smooth and accurate for the human player. :hmmm:

I need for assistance by U-boat captains who like doing this dirty job by themselves. I know there's plenty of them around here :arrgh!:

volodya61

01-07-13, 11:29 AM

Thank you Volodya. What about your crew? Are they trained gunners, or they are just as bad as you at downing planes? :O:

They do it even worse than me.. :nope: so I'm doing it myself.. but not often.. usually I'm diving..

I need for assistance by U-boat captains who like doing this dirty job by themselves. I know there's plenty of them around here :arrgh!:

My current campaign is Mare Nostrum.. so I can help with testing aircraft machine guns and AA guns..

gap

01-07-13, 11:56 AM

I do think that the Player's U-Boat crew doesn't seem to take out planes very often, I usually just take over to stop them from spending all of my ammunition.:hmmm:

Considering that our U-boat is generally equipped with just 1 (and no more that 3 in the best case) AA guns, whereas warhips got plenty of them and with almost unlimited ammunition, to some extent it could be normal that for us is harder shooting planes. I would be surprised of the contrary.

Nonetheless, ntegrating your answer with the one by Volodya we should conclude that despite (or due) to the different train/elevation speeds, our AA guns are worse than the ones fitted aboard ships. :hmmm:

Let's ignore human factors for the moment. Comparing our crew's and ship crew's shooting abilities will make things a lot easier. I doubt that the game got two different AIs for both our gunners and ship's gunners, so the answer should be in the guns they are shooting or in a parameter affecting their AI separately.

Talking about guns settings, besides the above mentioned train/elevation speeds, the only big difference I've noticed between ours and ship mounted guns is in two parameters, called Trav_tolerance and Elev_tolerance. They are set to 15/15 for all of our guns (except the vierlig, which is set to 5/3) and to 1/1 for most of ship's guns (with only one exception, where they are set to 0.75/0.75). I suspect that these settings might affect aiming accuracy separately for each gun.

Other parameters affecting AI's airshooting abilities globally, are found in sim.cfg (here are the IRAI settings)

[AI AA guns]
;The degrees at which the AI could be off when aiming guns at airplanes
Max error angle=4.5 ;[deg]
Max fire range=3500 ;[m] was 1500
Max fire wait=6

I ignore if they are applied to both our crew and ship's crews, but I suspect that they are apply to the latter.

Finally, in CrewAI.cfg we have the following parameters (with stock settings):

[CrewAI]
; Weapons.
Cannon range 1=500 ;[m] close range limit
Cannon range 2=600 ;[m] medium range limit
Cannon range 3=700 ;[m] long range limit
AA guns range 1=500 ;[m] close range limit
AA guns range 2=1000 ;[m] medium range limit
AA guns range 3=1500 ;[m] long range limit

;selection
Cannon Selection Range=8000 ;[m] max range to contact
AAGuns Selection Range=2000 ;[m] max range to contact
Recomended Torpedo Range=2000 ;[m] max range to contact
Recomended Deck Guns Range=2000 ;[m] max range to contact

In this case, it seems obvious to me that they only affect "our" gunners.

All in all, my theory is that the Trav_tolerance and Elev_tolerance parameters are applied as they are in game (unit used: degrees), whereas for other guns they are multiplied with the Max error angle setting found in sim.cfg. If this was true, with the above settings we would have a max traverse/elevation error of 15 deg for most of the human selectable guns, and of only 4.5 deg for the guns used as ship armaments.

My current campaign is Mare Nostrum.. so I can help with testing aircraft machine guns and AA guns..

I will prepare a couple of patches for testing my theory in game :yep: :up:

Rongel

01-07-13, 05:06 PM

A small update on torpedo duds. I did some tests and found out that the controls are quite broken. First issue is that lowering the torpedo speeds to reduce duds isn't working. The other is that date doesn't affect anything. I put the dud rate to 100% and between 1938-1943 and got the same effect in 1944 when the value was 0 %... Well at least that reduces the work amount for the mod!

Has anyone else got different results???

gap

01-07-13, 06:27 PM

Okay, 'AA guns error angle test mod' available here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?855alb6j9vdk8cn

This mods contains 4 submods (enable one at a time). It doesn't include the changes introduced so far with armaments & equipments patch, but they are compatible with each other. The use of A&E patch v0.2 together with this last one, is optional.

The submods are:

decrease own AA guns error angle: should make AI controlled guns on your sub as good as the ones aboard ships (Max error angle=4.5, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=4.5, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

decrease even more own and AI AA guns error angle: should make both your gunners and the ones enlisted on ships excellent shooter (Max error angle=1, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

increase AI AA guns error angle: should make the gunners aboard ships as bad as your ones (Max error angle=15, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=15, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

increase even more own and AI AA guns error angle: should make both your gunners and the ones enlisted on ships horrible shooters (Max error angle=30, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=30, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

The above names and my explainations of them are assuming that the Max error angle parameter in sim.cfg is applied only to ships mounted guns.
If this interpetation is not correct, then only the 2nd submod will be balanced; the 2nd submod would make our gunners a bit more accurate, but still worse that the ones aboard ships, and the 3rd and 4th, though decreasing the accuracy of ship mounted AA guns, would make our own guns inpossible to handle: I wouldn't be surprised if weird things happened :yep:

That's enough right now. Keep me informed on the results guys! :up:

A small update on torpedo duds. I did some tests and found out that the controls are quite broken. First issue is that lowering the torpedo speeds to reduce duds isn't working. The other is that date doesn't affect anything. I put the dud rate to 100% and between 1938-1943 and got the same effect in 1944 when the value was 0 %...

Is this with TDW's patch enabled? Is it possible that when fixing the general feature, he disabled speed and date controllers? :hmmm:

Well at least that reduces the work amount for the mod!

Your positive attitude doesn't convice me. Not in this case :)
To me is inacceptable having, during late war, the same dud rates as in 1939 :wah:

Anyway not everything is lost: while we wait for TDW to hopefully come back and have a look at the issue, you (:D) can collect as much historical info as you can and prepare several versions of the mod with different dud rates for different periods. At worse, we will fix those dud torps the hard way, by enabling a different submod every six months :O: :up:

volodya61

01-07-13, 08:34 PM

Okay, 'AA guns error angle test mod available here:
.....
That's enough right now. Keep me informed on the results guys! :up:

Thanks Gap! :up:

I'll test it a bit later today..
Tried to raise two snorkel at once (snorkel by the Beast and snorkel by TDW) about four hours.. :D unsuccessful.. now go to sleep..
I'll try your tests after wake up.. :03:

gap

01-07-13, 08:42 PM

Thanks Gap! :up:

I'll test it a bit later today..
Tried to raise two snorkel at once (snorkel by the Beast and snorkel by TDW) about four hours.. :D unsuccessful.. now go to sleep..
I'll try your tests after wake up.. :03:

I wish you have a good and refreshing rest, lieutenant Volodya. You need to be fit for the gunnery trials that are waiting for you tomorrow. :O: :arrgh!:

volodya61

01-07-13, 08:58 PM

..waiting for you tomorrow. :O: :arrgh!:

not tomorrow.. already today.. 06:00 AM here, in native area.. :)

V13dweller

01-07-13, 09:51 PM

I have finished the stock game before, and I am doing to Open Horizons 2 campaign now. I will go back to the stock games Mare Nostrum if you need more test results.
I do find shooting down aircraft to be quite interesting, I'd call myself 'Good' at it, my choice of AA gun is the 'Improved Flak 30', from the Beasts upgrade unlock.
If you don't know what the Improved Flak 30 is, It's a flak 30 with the aiming sight of the twin flak.
I will get to testing your mod straight away.

V13dweller

01-07-13, 11:48 PM

I just found out, that the Queen Elizabeth Battleships secondary guns don't have muzzle flash.

gap

01-08-13, 03:42 AM

I have finished the stock game before, and I am doing to Open Horizons 2 campaign now. I will go back to the stock games Mare Nostrum if you need more test results.

I would be grateful to you if you checked the test mods I've released yesterday. I need to know if you can confirm the descriptions I've made for each submod. In other words you should tell me if the AA guns are doing what they are supposed to, according to my changed settings and to my (coarse) interpretation of them. Please, don't exitate to ask if you need for any clarification.

I do find shooting down aircraft to be quite interesting, I'd call myself 'Good' at it...

Perfect :up:

at the moment I am especially interested in comparing AI's ability to shoot airplanes with both sub Flaks (let your crew manning them) and ship mounted AA guns. You can do it in campaign (there shouldn't be problems in enabling any of the test mods during middle patrol) or, even better, in an expressely designed mission.
Nonetheless, you can try as well to man the flaks yourself, and see if the changes done are affecting human difficulty too.
At some point, when we will make a better idea of the parameters involved, I would like our gunners to be at least as good as you, or even a bit better than you at doing their job, and ship gunners should be lesser infallible. :yep:

my choice of AA gun is the 'Improved Flak 30', from the Beasts upgrade unlock. If you don't know what the Improved Flak 30 is, It's a flak 30 with the aiming sight of the twin flak.
I will get to testing your mod straight away.

I know this gun, though after looking at its characteristics in guns_radars_01.sim, and after doing some research on the web, I have to say that it is probably fictive. I think I will give it the specs of a single mount Flak C/38 all the way, unless advised to the contrary ;)

I just found out, that the Queen Elizabeth Battleships secondary guns don't have muzzle flash.

You are right, after looking at its settings, I can confirm that that gun too misses its flash effect... dunno how, I had totally overlooked it. :oops:
I will rectify my inattention with the next patch. Thanks for reporting it. :)

V13dweller

01-08-13, 04:17 AM

And your mod is not compatible with Realistic ammo for flak and deck guns http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1706

Do you think you could make it compatible?
I like to carry more then the stock ammo, because the basic amount is unacceptable.

Rongel

01-08-13, 04:20 AM

Is this with TDW's patch enabled? Is it possible that when fixing the general feature, he disabled speed and date controllers? :hmmm:

Your positive attitude doesn't convice me. Not in this case :)
To me is inacceptable having, during late war, the same dud rates as in 1939 :wah:

Anyway not everything is lost: while we wait for TDW to hopefully come back and have a look at the issue, you (:D) can collect as much historical info as you can and prepare several versions of the mod with different dud rates for different periods. At worse, we will fix those dud torps the hard way, by enabling a different submod every six months :O: :up:

Yep, I have the latest patch running. It is possible that it has something to do with it, it could be that without the patch, imported ships would still react correctly to dud-rates, torpedo speeds and rates. But I can live without the low-speed reduction (even if that was historically accurate).

Positive attitude is everything, all is not lost indeed! I haven't read that much yet about the different torpedoes, but the game has 11 different torpedoes modelled. And we have now mods that make them available to use in the right time. So can't we just make the new torpedoes more reliable and stop using the old faulty ones? Different dud values work for different torpedoes.

Other option is to try to make a new torpedo. We could make another TypeI torpedo that comes available in '43 that is much more reliable than the early war version. In this case we need to edit the torpedos GR2-file and add some stuff there, is that now possible with TDW's tool?

gap

01-08-13, 07:01 AM

Yep, I have the latest patch running. It is possible that it has something to do with it, it could be that without the patch, imported ships would still react correctly to dud-rates, torpedo speeds and rates. But I can live without the low-speed reduction (even if that was historically accurate).

Positive attitude is everything, all is not lost indeed!

No, of course it is not! Forgive me for my moment of despair :D

My opinion is still that date-depending dud rates, and speed-depending dud chances are too cool features for simply giving them up. Nonetheless, atm there isn't much we can do for them but hoping that TDW will revise his patch one day. In the emanwhile, I see, you got devised some good workarounds!

I haven't read that much yet about the different torpedoes, but the game has 11 different torpedoes modelled. And we have now mods that make them available to use in the right time. So can't we just make the new torpedoes more reliable and stop using the old faulty ones? Different dud values work for different torpedoes.

I don't know... I have not in-depth information on this topic, but I think that more reliable versions of the standard TI torpedo were produced before the advent of the TIII model or FaT/LuT variants. In other words, while it was inproved, TI was still the main choice, whereas newer torpedo types were available in limitated stocks.

IIRC, this fact is modelled in game, with the most recent torpedo types being not always available during normal refittings, not to mention that, when refitting at sea, the player is assigned totally random torpedo loadouts.

All in all, I believe that apllying the method yo have suggested would either limit too much our choice, or force us to use flawed torpedoes even when (historically) dud chances were not so high :yep:

If any other approach failed, this workaround would nonetheless be an acceptable compromise. :)

Other option is to try to make a new torpedo. We could make another TypeI torpedo that comes available in '43 that is much more reliable than the early war version.

THIS is actually a good idea! :up:
we can clone existing torpedoes and, by setting wisely availability dates, slowly replace the dud ones with their improved versions... I could I have been so blind not to see it before? :88) :O:

In this case we need to edit the torpedos GR2-file and add some stuff there, is that now possible with TDW's tool?

I'm slowly moving my first setps into learning the tricks of TDW's GR2 editor. As far as I know, doing what you are suggesting should be possible.
Applying your idea would require just to edit the Id's of torpedo GR2 files to be cloned. If we manage to do it, what remains to be done is remapping the new Id's in sim/zon files, and updating them with the wanted settings. Boring task yes, but immune from complications :know:

V13dweller

01-08-13, 10:11 AM

I have also noticed, that Depth charges have been reaching me deeper than their 91 meter limit, and their sonar's passive and active have been reaching me at over 160 meters under, I personally don't believe that to be possible.
And I am in silent running but when they go directly above me, their passive sonar keeps detecting me. Any idea's?
Can you wait until they have circled you so long they need to refuel?

gap

01-08-13, 12:21 PM

I have also noticed, that Depth charges have been reaching me deeper than their 91 meter limit...

I didn't look into depth charges yet. I will investigate :up:

and their sonar's passive and active have been reaching me at over 160 meters under, I personally don't believe that to be possible.
And I am in silent running but when they go directly above me, their passive sonar keeps detecting me. Any idea's?
Can you wait until they have circled you so long they need to refuel?

This is another aspect that I still haven't studied in depth.
For sure there's a 'Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation' parameter in Sim.cfg. Stock value was 5 (=20% attenuation), but it was making AI too dumb. IRAI reduces it to 1.7 (1=no signal attenuation).
Also note that, unless I am very much mistaken, there's no way to change the thermal layer depth. It varies randomly.

P.S: have you started tests with AA guuns?

After a second thought, I suggest you and Volodya to carry on your tests using a custom mission. AI aiming accuracy might be affected by seastate, light, fog, crew training, etc. Appreciating all of these factors in campaign would be difficult if not impossible. :yep:

volodya61

01-08-13, 08:07 PM

Well, testing completed..
much time has been spent on re-editing .sim-files.. for testing was necessary to increase the ammo amount.. (usually I'm using Ammo by Raven2012)

decrease own AA guns error angle: should make AI controlled guns on your sub as good as the ones aboard ships (Max error angle=4.5, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=4.5, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

the crew still doesn't know how to shoot

decrease even more own and AI AA guns error angle: should make both your gunners and the ones enlisted on ships excellent shooter (Max error angle=1, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

a bit better but I'm still the best

increase AI AA guns error angle: should make the gunners aboard ships as bad as your ones (Max error angle=15, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=15, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

now the AI-ship's gunners force down planes less frequently and not as fast as before
maybe we should slightly reduce the error angle? perhaps 10 would be enough

increase even more own and AI AA guns error angle: should make both your gunners and the ones enlisted on ships horrible shooters (Max error angle=30, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=30, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)

it was just a joke :D

Okay, I think no need to change the AA settings for subs, only for AI-ships..
am I understanding correctly that these files (20mm_C30.sim etc., 37mmM.sim etc.) are the sub's armament files and this one (Vierling.sim) is an AI-ship's armament file?

V13dweller

01-09-13, 01:33 AM

gap

01-09-13, 04:01 AM

Are the German and Italian destroyers armed with an active sonar? because I created a test mission, and the Soldati and type 1934 destroyers don't seem to follow the British U-Class subs once they are underwater.

Yes, as far as I can see from their sns files, they do.

Nonetheless AI sonars are set to stop working above 8 mt below the sea level. It is possible that:

- the bone where the sonar is attached on the ship model is misplaced (above the 8 mt depth, thus rendering the sensor unoperative);
- some other setting in sensors_AI.sim needs to be adjusted;
- enemy subs are lacking a setting/property needed for making them detectable underwater;
- friendly ship's AI is flawed/unable to follow submarine target.

In the latter case there is little I can do without TDW's help.

In order to avoid confusion I prefer facing a problem at a time, but I will take a mental note of the issue, and I will look further into it at the right moment. Please keep this mission in a safe place for future testing. :)

gap

01-09-13, 06:44 AM

Well, testing completed..

Wolodya my friend,

we are about to make an important discovery here that will greatly improve the realism of surface to surface and surface to air engagements. Your tests seem to confirm my hypothesis that the two tolerance factors are combined with the 'Max error angle' parameter in Sim.cfg for affecting guns' accuracy.

If that was true, it would mean that we can individually adjust horizontal and vertical dispersion for each gun: in other words, no more millimetrically accurate AI guns or, on the other hand, totally dumb gunners on our boat. It makes me wonder why no one looked in these parameters before, since there were many complaints on this subject :up:

much time has been spent on re-editing .sim-files.. for testing was necessary to increase the ammo amount.. (usually I'm using Ammo by Raven2012)

Yes, I know that mod. Realistic ammo loadouts are in my todo list too. :up:

Now my remarks to your individual reports:

decrease own AA guns error angle: should make AI controlled guns on your sub as good as the ones aboard ships (Max error angle=4.5, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=4.5, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)
the crew still doesn't know how to shoot

That's weird. The stock setting for both Trav and Elev tolerance of sub AA guns is 15 deg. I have reduced the above figures to only 4.5 (that's 30% of the original). It doesn't add up, unless Max error angle in Sim.cfg is affecting our guns as well as AI guns. If that was true, we would have an error angle of 4.5 x 4.5 = 20.25 deg: still too much for our poor gunners :yep:

decrease even more own and AI AA guns error angle: should make both your gunners and the ones enlisted on ships excellent shooter (Max error angle=1, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)
a bit better but I'm still the best

only a bit better? These settings should have converted both your and AI ship's gunners into snipers :hmm2:

P.S. are you a sniper? ;) :D

increase AI AA guns error angle: should make the gunners aboard ships as bad as your ones (Max error angle=15, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=15, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)
now the AI-ship's gunners force down planes less frequently and not as fast as before

:up:
what about your crew? Did they get totally crazy, or they were just as bad/good as in stock?

maybe we should slightly reduce the error angle? perhaps 10 would be enough

Do you mean that a 'Max error angle' of 15deg makes AI guns too bad? from your first comment (...force down planes less frequently... etc) it seemed to me that they were just a bit worse than in stock game, and for my understanding of the file settings, they should be just as bad as vanilla sub gunners :hmmm:

increase even more own and AI AA guns error angle: should make both your gunners and the ones enlisted on ships horrible shooters (Max error angle=30, sub guns Trav/Elev tolerance=30, ship guns Trav/Elev tolerance=1)
it was just a joke :D

Not exactly. We learn from our mistakes, but I think I had warned you that some of my settings were a bit excessive ;) :D

Okay, I think no need to change the AA settings for subs, only for AI-ships..

So are you okay with the vanilla settings as far as far as U-boat guns are concerned? Personally, I would expect a trained AI gunner to be at least as good as the captain-player if not better. If you think that our gunners are already good enough, I can try making the aiming more difficult for the player. What do you think?

In any case, before I start finetuning the settings, I need to know wether the aiming of AI ships/sub's guns is affected by crew experience, weather, ambien light, etc. or not. Can you make some tests on this subject? :D

am I understanding correctly that these files (20mm_C30.sim etc., 37mmM.sim etc.) are the sub's armament files and this one (Vierling.sim) is an AI-ship's armament file?

Yes, you are correct: all the guns contained in the Objects\Guns folder are selectable sub upgrades, with the one exception of the AI_Deck_Gun_GE88mm gun, which is fitted aboard AI subs. The Vierlig is the quad mount version of the C/38 20mm Flak. The same gun is also available as ship armaments in guns_radars_01 :up:

Rongel

01-09-13, 08:17 AM

I'm slowly moving my first setps into learning the tricks of TDW's GR2 editor. As far as I know, doing what you are suggesting should be possible.
Applying your idea would require just to edit the Id's of torpedo GR2 files to be cloned. If we manage to do it, what remains to be done is remapping the new Id's in sim/zon files, and updating them with the wanted settings. Boring task yes, but immune from complications :know:

I fiddled with TDW's editor some time ago, so I could try to mess with the torpedoes this weekend. I started to read again the "Wolves Without Teeth: German Torpedo Crisis" thesis which is really interesting to read. And a very good source material! So it might be that I continue doing that instead! Maybe it's better to first get the data right.

Concerning the AI guns and submarine crew: I think also that the AI ships seem to be too good, they shoot airplanes down pretty easily. And I don't know what was the historical percentage that destroyers and battleships hit enemy ships, right now they are also very good at it, almost every shell hits their target. And one last point, remember that the sub crew gains experience, gunner at the start of the game doesn't seem to hit anything, but after few campaigns, there is a significant change in it. There's my thoughts of the day! :D

gap

01-09-13, 09:35 AM

I fiddled with TDW's editor some time ago, so I could try to mess with the torpedoes this weekend. I started to read again the "Wolves Without Teeth: German Torpedo Crisis" thesis which is really interesting to read. And a very good source material! So it might be that I continue doing that instead! Maybe it's better to first get the data right.

If you got nothing else to do, both your plans for the next weekend seem equally goog to me. :up:

Regarding your reading, yes indeed that David Wright, author of the essay, should be awarded with the Nobel Prize in videogaming :D
If I can give you a suggestion, for ease of access I would start arranging the information contained in it into a worksheet.

Concerning the AI guns and submarine crew: I think also that the AI ships seem to be too good, they shoot airplanes down pretty easily.

Okay, wait for me and Volodya to sabotage a bit their AA guns, and let's see what happens. I hope they won't become an easy pray for airplanes :doh:

And I don't know what was the historical percentage that destroyers and battleships hit enemy ships, right now they are also very good at it, almost every shell hits their target.

For what I can see, there are 2 different 'Max error angle' settings in Sim.cfg, one for AA guns, and one for surface cannons. Moreover, each gun got a Trav.tolerance and a Elev.tolerance parameter in guns_radars_01.sim. Once we fully understand their mechanism, we will be able to adjust whatever gun.

What is especially cool about the two tolerance factors is that, by playing with them, we can give each gun its characteristic dispersion values based on historical specs (some guns had unusal vertical and/or horizontal dispersion values compared to "average guns).

And one last point, remember that the sub crew gains experience, gunner at the start of the game doesn't seem to hit anything, but after few campaigns, there is a significant change in it. There's my thoughts of the day! :D

Thank you for reporting this piece of information. I was going to ask you about it!

By any chance, is there a way to set our crew's experience in custom mission? Does it work as for other units? And do you happen to know if AI-unit's guns are likewise affectet by crew ranking? :hmm2:

volodya61

01-09-13, 10:28 AM

I have some connection issues today, so I can't responding right away :nope:

All tests were on the sub with only one gunner on board. Maybe later I'll try to test a sub with several gunners. On the other hand we are on board the sub rather than on the destroyer.. :D

That's weird. The stock setting for both Trav and Elev tolerance of sub AA guns is 15 deg. I have reduced the above figures to only 4.5 (that's 30% of the original). It doesn't add up, unless Max error angle in Sim.cfg is affecting our guns as well as AI guns. If that was true, we would have an error angle of 4.5 x 4.5 = 20.25 deg: still too much for our poor gunners :yep:
only a bit better? These settings should have converted both your and AI ship's gunners into snipers :hmm2:

For some reasons a gunner shoots often below or above the target and it doesn't look like a preemptive shots..
Although the accuracy of the shots in both tests was good but most shots off target

P.S. are you a sniper? ;) :D

a bit :D

what about your crew? Did they get totally crazy, or they were just as bad/good as in stock?

as in stock

Do you mean that a 'Max error angle' of 15deg makes AI guns too bad? from your first comment (...force down planes less frequently... etc) it seemed to me that they were just a bit worse than in stock game, and for my understanding of the file settings, they should be just as bad as vanilla sub gunners

Maybe a language barrier to blame? I'm not always accurately can pick the right words :nope:
In these tests was the task force (6 DD's and 2 Dido) and they downed the planes too long, I think, in reality, they would have done it a bit faster..

Not exactly. We learn from our mistakes, but I think I had warned you that some of my settings were a bit excessive ;) :D

Do you think that the "a bit" is a right word? :haha: :O:

So are you okay with the vanilla settings as far as far as U-boat guns are concerned? Personally, I would expect a trained AI gunner to be at least as good as the captain-player if not better. If you think that our gunners are already good enough, I can try making the aiming more difficult for the player. What do you think?

I think that we are on board the sub and our main weapon is the torpedoes :up:
On the other hand, I am using Sober's bad weather deck gun for inaccuracy during the storm :hmmm:

In any case, before I start finetuning the settings, I need to know wether the aiming of AI ships/sub's guns is affected by crew experience, weather, ambien light, etc. or not. Can you make some tests on this subject? :D

OK.. I'll do it :yep:

The Vierlig is the quad mount version of the C/38 20mm Flak

Now I see :up:

gap

01-09-13, 01:11 PM

All tests were on the sub with only one gunner on board. Maybe later I'll try to test a sub with several gunners. On the other hand we are on board the sub rather than on the destroyer.. :D

Take onboard as many Flaks as you need, I am more concerned about their accuracy than about their number ;)

For some reasons a gunner shoots often below or above the target and it doesn't look like a preemptive shots..
Although the accuracy of the shots in both tests was good but most shots off target

I think this behaviour is due to poor AI programming: the error angle is applied randomly whereas we would expect AI gunners to progressively correct their aim. Unfortunately fixing it, is outside our reach. :-?
By the way: as suggested by Rongel, the aim accuracy of our gunner is greatly affected by crew experience. Did you made your tests in campaign or in a custom mission? What did you set as crew experience for your sub?

a bit :D

you crazy russians!
Several weeks ago I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSp7CipN1pw) by a country mate of you, where he is firing a 40 mm automatic gun :o
If you like, in his youtube channel you can preview his whole arsenal in action :rotfl2:

as in stock

This seems to confirm the fact that guns aboard the player's sub are not affected by settings in Sim.cfg :hmmm:
By the way, the intent of this mod was to decrease AI guns' accuracy to the level of stock sub guns, keeping the latter unchanged.

Maybe a language barrier to blame? I'm not always accurately can pick the right words :nope:
In these tests was the task force (6 DD's and 2 Dido) and they downed the planes too long, I think, in reality, they would have done it a bit faster..

You have been perfectly clear: a max error angle of 15 deg is excessive in game and it would be, after all, highly unlikely in real life :up:
On the other hand, I am curious to know the crew ranking of that taskforce, if you can provide this information...

Do you think that the "a bit" is a right word? :haha: :O:

"a bit" is a relative therm: what is a bit for me is a lot for you. But what actually happened during that test? Were sub Flaks also affected by "my bit" or just ships's guns?

I think that we are on board the sub and our main weapon is the torpedoes :up:
On the other hand, I am using Sober's bad weather deck gun for inaccuracy during the storm :hmmm:

That is sure. Tell me to jam those guns and I will! ;)
In any case I think that the aim of our crew should be comparable to the one of the player: a bit worse than ours at their lowest ranking, and slightly better than ours when they gain the maximum experience. :yep:

OK.. I'll do it :yep:

Thank you,
I appreciate your valuable help, but take your time on it: I don't want to burden you, and I know you have another important work is waiting for you ;)

In any case, I plan to join you in carrying the extra tests.

From now on, if possible, they should be carried out in custom missions. Moreover, in our reports, we should take notes of:

approximate time of the day (dawn/sunset, morning/afternoon, noon, or night);
moon visibility and moonphase (for night missions)
wind speed, cloud coverage, precipitations, fog
ships included in the mission and their ranking
sub crew ranking

volodya61

01-09-13, 04:08 PM

Did you made your tests in campaign or in a custom mission? What did you set as crew experience for your sub?

In the campaign.. I can't make the missions.. I'm too lazy and still have not figured out the ME2.. :nope:
I have no idea what kind of experience in my crew.. third campaign.. probably veterans..

you crazy russians!

Yep.. We are.. :haha:

On the other hand, I am curious to know the crew ranking of that taskforce, if you can provide this information...

I can't.. but I think Trevally can..
These were taskforces around Malta.. May-June 41

"a bit" is a relative therm: what is a bit for me is a lot for you. But what actually happened during that test? Were sub Flaks also affected by "my bit" or just ships's guns?

Everything in this life is relative :hmmm: :D
Don't remember exactly.. I'll retest it..

In any case I think that the aim of our crew should be comparable to the one of the player: a bit worse than ours at their lowest ranking, and slightly better than ours when they gain the maximum experience. :yep:

Agree..

Thank you,
I appreciate your valuable help, but take your time on it: I don't want to burden you, and I know you have another important work is waiting for you ;)

Don't thank.. You do a lot more for all of us..

From now on, if possible, they should be carried out in custom missions. Moreover, in our reports, we should take notes of:

Maybe you can make a few different custom missions for this.. it would have helped a lot.. :yep:

gap

01-09-13, 04:20 PM

Maybe you can make a few different custom missions for this.. it would have helped a lot.. :yep:

Okay, I got your point: I will create a set of custom missions especially designed for our tests. Tomorrow. Now I am going to watch a good movie :up:

volodya61

01-09-13, 04:25 PM

Ok.. I just thought that a month of such correspondence and my English will be much better.. :D

gap

01-09-13, 04:33 PM

Ok.. I just thought that a month of such correspondence and my English will be much better.. :D

I hope you take my english with a pinch of salt :03: :haha:

volodya61

01-09-13, 04:51 PM

gap

01-09-13, 05:21 PM

I noticed that the best communication is obtained with people for whom English is not their native language.. We are not so much focusing on the possible errors because we didn't notice them.. :up:

EDIT: and we use mostly simple words..

yes and not. Sometimes I feel I express myself better with native speakers... maybe because I do my best not to be accused to spoil their language :haha:

volodya61

01-09-13, 11:03 PM

gap

01-10-13, 04:21 AM

:hmmm:
did some new tests.. results differ from the previous ones.. you were right.. we need some custom missions to check.. if the initial conditions are identical it will be easier.. in a dynamic campaign is difficult to properly evaluate the result.. different aircrafts, different crew experiences, different weather conditions etc..

:salute:

As expected: there are so many variables in game that if we don't fix some of them, understanding what's going on with our change won't be easy, if possible at all :yep:

volodya61

01-10-13, 05:34 AM

gap

01-10-13, 10:10 AM

:hmmm: so, for beginning we need two different missions (I think so) -

1. the sub with two/three AA-guns on board and several different enemy planes

2. the enemy task-force and several different our and friendly planes

weather conditions, time of day etc. we can change in the mission's settings window before mission start..

For a start, I think we need still to answer the following questions:

is the Max error angle (Sim.cfg) applied to player's guns, or not?
are the two gun-specific Trav and Elev tolerance affecting aiming accuracy?
if yes, how are they combined with the above Max error angle setting (multiplied, adde, etc.)?

By saying that we need to answer these questions, I mean that we got to remove any possible doubt about them. We have already discussed them, but so far we have only unconfirmed hypothesis :yep:

With this premise in mind, I am proposing the following method:

creating a basic mission with standard settings and just an U-boat, a ship and an enemy airplane: the more stuff we put in it, the more the unpredictable interactions between various elements, whereas we want to do things as simple as possible.
changing just one single setting at a time, no matter if it is a mission related parameter or a gun setting.
answering just one question at a time: again it will make things a lot easier.
ignoring any realism consideration: right now we should be only concerned about the game mechanism. Finetuning it will be the second (...or third :O:) step.

If you agree with this method, I would like to find an answer to the first question:

is the Max error angle (Sim.cfg) applied to player's guns, or not?

for doing it we need for the above mentioned mission (an U-boat with a single Flak and an airplane without bombs), IRAI, and a set of modifications of the 'Max error angle' parameter. Here's the plan of our tests:

test 1: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 0.00 test mod (AA Max error angle=0)
test 2: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 2.25 test mod
test 3: SH5 + IRAI (AA Max error angle=4.5, this is our "blank" that any other test will be copared with)
test 4: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 6.75 test mod
test 5: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 9.00 test mod

If our assumption (that the AA Max error angle is not affecting our Flaks) was true, we would expect the precision of our AI gunners not to change from a test to another test. On the contrary, if we were wrong, their precision should decrease from test 1 to test 5 :yep:

How to "measure" and report the results of our tests? Two ways come to my mind; we can:

adopt a subjective method by expressing the performance of our gunner in comparison the blank test (much worse, worse, slightly worse, slightly better, better, much better)

or (preferably) we can:

adopt a numeric reporting: number of salvos required for downing the plane, or times the plane dived to attack us before it got shot down, or (even better) number of bullets left after downing it. In order to make things even easier, I think I will give the plane abundance of harmless dummy shells, and I will also increase our ammo storage.

What do you think? Can I go on preparing the mission and the test mods? :sunny:

volodya61

01-10-13, 11:09 AM

is the Max error angle (Sim.cfg) applied to player's guns, or not?

:oops: I'm still thinking not, because -

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

How to "measure" and report the results of our tests? Two ways come to my mind; we can:

I think we should use both types of reports.. :yep:
but what is accepted as the standard in the first variant?

What do you think? Can I go on preparing the mission and the test mods?

Let's do it :up:

gap

01-10-13, 11:35 AM

:oops: I'm still thinking not, because...

So do I, but better making sure of it ;)

I think we should use both types of reports.. :yep:
but what is accepted as the standard in the first variant?

test 3 (SH5 + IRAI)

Let's do it :up:

I am on it: just give me half an hour :salute:

volodya61

01-10-13, 12:55 PM

Here's the plan of our tests:

test 1: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 0.00 test mod (AA Max error angle=0)
test 2: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 2.25 test mod
test 3: SH5 + IRAI (AA Max error angle=4.5, this is our "blank" that any other test will be copared with)
test 4: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 6.75 test mod
test 5: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 9.00 test mod

I believe that we need to make adjustments to the plan:

test: SH5 + NewUis + IRAI

The thought is: we can't order - "fire at will" without an interface.. in the stock game we able to designate target using binoculars only.. :down:

gap

01-10-13, 01:19 PM

[/LIST]
I believe that we need to make adjustments to the plan:

test: SH5 + NewUis + IRAI

The thought is: we can't order - "fire at will" without an interface.. in the stock game we able to designate target using binoculars only.. :down:

Yes indeed: I didn't make any mention to the use of an UI mod because I thought it was implicit :up:

I never actually played with the stock UI :haha:

P.S: your suggestion arrived just at the right moment: the test mission is ready, but after a first test (Mew UIs enabled), crew refuses to fire against the plane :-?
I will try changing the crew doctrine to aggressive, and in case of failure my stubborn gunner will become food for sharks :yep:

gap

01-10-13, 02:07 PM

I had for the first time a closer look at our gunner in action in what would be our test #3 (SH5 + NEW UIs + IRAI) and man, is he stupid!

I think he didn't score any hit, and when I finally resolved to get rid of the Hurricane by myself, I realized that he had already finished all my ammunition :mad:

...wait, I will try raising the veterancy level to elite and let's see what will happen :hmmm:

volodya61

01-10-13, 02:45 PM

gap

01-10-13, 04:17 PM

Make sure that the order - "fire at will" is enabled..
Sometimes I had to repeatedly switch from order "fire at will" to order "hold fire"..
And sometimes they didn't open fire for some strange reason.. :hmmm:

Yes, ordering battlestations helps as well :yep:

Anyway, right now the problem is that even at at close range and with veterancy level set to "elite", my gunner can't score a single hit. :nope:

Either crew ranking isn't applied in my custom mission, or a single C/30 mounted on the aft deck (so is equipped the VIIA U-boat that I've picked for the mission) is not very effective with stock settings. :hmm2:

In the circumstances, I think it will be pointless to carry on test #4 and #5. You can download the mission from this link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/2530578930/AA%20Guns%20Test%20Mission%20%231.rar

JSGME ready. Missions settings:

date and hour: 01/01/1940 12:00
clouds: none
fog: none
wind speed: 5 m/s
Wind heading: N

sub veterancy level: elite
sub doctrine: aggressive
aircraft veterancy level: competent
aircraft doctrine: aggressive

I think you can do the changes to Sim.cfg required for the planned test by yourself. Note that there are two Max error angle settings. Only one gets applied to AA guns:

[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.4 ;[0,1]
Waves attenuation=0.65 ;>=0

[AI Cannons]
;The degrees at which the AI could be off when aiming guns at you
Max error angle=4.5 ;[deg] was 3, increased 33%
Max fire range=7000 ;[m] was 6000
Max fire wait=12 ;[s]

[AI AA guns]
;The degrees at which the AI could be off when aiming guns at airplanes
Max error angle=4.5 ;[deg] <= THIS ONE
Max fire range=3500 ;[m] was 1500
Max fire wait=6 ;[s]

Besides the mods required for our tests, I suggest you to enable the mod you have created for increasing Flak's ammo (make sure not to make any other change than this one). The one Flak that you will need to edit is the C/30 (20mm_C30 in Objects/Guns folder)
The one Hurricane I've put in mission cannot harm that much your U-boat, so I left its armaments unchanged.
Before entering in mission, make sure to select the VIIA (if you select the VIIB, you won't get any Flak aboard your boat). Also make sure to adopt the same firing ordesr for all of your tests the tests (I used attack at close range / closing targets, with battlestations activated). That's all :up:

volodya61

01-10-13, 04:57 PM

That's all :up:

That's all folks © :D

I will report within an hour.. maybe two.. :up:

PS: I'm not so silly for such detailed instructions :haha:

volodya61

01-10-13, 06:59 PM

news.. good or bad? don't know exactly..

Mission Impossible © :O:

test 1: SH5 + NewUIs + IRAI + Sim.cfg ErrAng=0.00 & 20mm_C30.sim Ammo=1200

clouds: none
fog: none
wind speed: 0 m/s

sub speed: All Stop & Ahead Slow
battlestations: activated
range: close & medium

EDIT: total: four tests - /All Stop+close/ & /All Stop+medium/ & /Ahead Slow+close/ & /Ahead Slow+medium/

no one hit.. at all..

the other tests didn't hold.. I see no reason..
previous tests (in the campaign) I did on a boat 7C with one C38-twin.. there were hits.. often..

gap

01-10-13, 07:07 PM

That's all folks © :D

I will report within an hour.. maybe two.. :up:

PS: I'm not so silly for such detailed instructions :haha:

Sorry mate,

I used to practice in a laboratory, back in the days I was an university student of biology. Most of what I learned in those years is the importance of following a written method and to record thoroughly even the silliest experiment. Call it an occupational disease ;) :D

THE_MASK

01-10-13, 07:16 PM

I looked at the stuka in goblin . It uses 5000 AP shells . Is the plane shells too powerful or something . Change them to AA .

gap

01-10-13, 07:16 PM

gap

01-10-13, 07:18 PM

I looked at the stuka in goblin . It uses 5000 AP shells . Is the plane shells too powerful or something . Change them to AA .

Thank you for the headup sober. I haven't looked into the planes yet, but they are in the todo list of this mod :up:

volodya61

01-10-13, 07:41 PM

Sorry mate,

I used to practice in a laboratory, back in the days I was an university student of biology. Most of what I learned in those years is the importance of following a written method and to record thoroughly even the silliest experiment. Call it an occupational disease ;) :D

It's OK..
I can forget or confuse anything, but with your instructions that's not possible.. :up:

Okay, let's do some tests with the C/38 twin, then. :up:

Tomorrow I will do the needed changes to our mission. I need to rest now :yawn: :)

OK.. see you tomorrow..

gap

01-10-13, 07:56 PM

It's OK..
I can forget or confuse anything, but with your instructions that's not possible.. :up:
OK.. see you tomorrow..

Give me a moment: since you are still awake and lively, I will adjust the mission right now, so to keep you busy :D

gap

01-10-13, 08:21 PM

Sorry, it is taking longer than expected... I've yet to find the right combination of date and U-boat model :-?

You can try one of the airplane missions included in IRAI and in Fx updates, if you want. I've to go now, see ya tomorrow :up:

GT182

01-10-13, 10:36 PM

Guys, don't you have to train your gunners in stock SH5... just like we did in SHIII? Once trained well enough they'll knock those Tommies out of the air.

THE_MASK

01-10-13, 11:18 PM

Guys, don't you have to train your gunners in stock SH5... just like we did in SHIII? Once trained well enough they'll knock those Tommies out of the air.If that was the case then maybe there should be some anti aircraft training in the OH2 campaign . The first mission could be to shoot down 10 planes in a certain area before heading to the Baltic mission . 10 biplanes or something .

GT182

01-10-13, 11:42 PM

If I'm on the right track Sober, then what you say would be a good idea.

THE_MASK

01-11-13, 02:21 AM

If I'm on the right track Sober, then what you say would be a good idea.maybe its something left over from Sh3/4 . Maybe someone can look at the SH4 files but maybe a hardcoded thing .

volodya61

01-11-13, 06:23 AM

Give me a moment: since you are still awake and lively, I will adjust the mission right now, so to keep you busy :D

Sorry, it is taking longer than expected... I've yet to find the right combination of date and U-boat model :-?

any news? :03:

gap

01-11-13, 07:19 AM

any news? :03:

I was busy this morning. I will work on it just after lunch :up:

volodya61

01-11-13, 07:40 AM

I just asked :oops:
Take your time :up:

gap

01-11-13, 08:06 AM

I just asked :oops:
Take your time :up:

Okay, I am again on it :up:

gap

01-11-13, 11:19 AM

mmm... I heven't managed yet to bring the C/38 twin in our custom mission...

I have tried changing mission date, tweaking Flak gun's availability dates in UPCDataGE, modifying boat's standard Flaks in their eqp file, but still nothing, depending on mission date and selected U-boat, I was given either the usual single C/30 or a full battery of two 37 mm guns and one FlakVierling :doh:

Under this circumstance, it will be difficult to test each Flak gun. Any suggestion?

On a side note, when I tested (by mistake) the 37 mm / vierling guns, they hit the Hurricane at the first shot. Aim with the C/30 is totally out of sight even at higher crew rankings. This gun costantly aims under its target by several degrees. I wonder what is wrong with it :hmmm:

volodya61

01-11-13, 11:43 AM

Under this circumstance, it will be difficult to test each Flak gun. Any suggestion?

Maybe Trevally can help? ME2 is his tool :)

Aim with the C/30 is totally out of sight even at higher crew rankings. This gun constantly aims under its target by several degrees. I wonder what is wrong with it :hmmm:

The same thing often happened when I did the tests in the campaign with C38-twin..
For some reasons a gunner shoots often below or above the target and it doesn't look like a preemptive shots..
Although the accuracy of the shots in both tests was good but most shots off target

gap

01-11-13, 12:01 PM

Maybe Trevally can help? ME2 is his tool :)

I hope so :D

The same thing often happened when I did the tests in the campaign with C38-twin..

Yes, but you told me that it occasionally hit the target. For what I've seen, even with elite crew rating, the C/30 is sistematically aiming under its target. During my tests it didn't score a single hit, and I think your tests in the same mission confirm it. :yep:

Trevally.

01-11-13, 12:56 PM

I would suggest that you test your missions in the campaign as this will give you full control over what you are testing.

So you need to add your mission as a new layer in a late campaign. This way you can use trigger event spawning to add units etc. (these events do not work in a single player mission)
When you start a campaign (silentotto) you can then kit out your boat with any equipment you want from the dock.

Edit the mission list so that your new layer is the only mission in the campaign (can be done by date) and then when you ask the kmo for a mission - you will get the one you are testing.

This will mean you have to travel to your test area each time (or save for rerun test with same equip), but you can make the test area close to your port.

:up:

volodya61

01-11-13, 01:22 PM

During my tests it didn't score a single hit, and I think your tests in the same mission confirm it. :yep:

Seems like a C/30 is initially broken flak-gun.. :nope:

I would suggest that you test your missions in the campaign as this will give you full control over what you are testing.

It's hard to me.. I'm still not able to make a single mission.. too lazy to figure out how ME2 work.. :D

gap

01-11-13, 01:54 PM

Seems like a C/30 is initially broken flak-gun.. :nope:

After all, I think our first test will be about the trav / elev tolerance factors. I wan to see if they fix this damn gun :03:

I would suggest that you test your missions in the campaign as this will give you full control over what you are testing.

:doh:

It's hard to me.. I'm still not able to make a single mission.. too lazy to figure out how ME2 work.. :D

:sign_yeah:

but I promise one day I will put myself at it. How much do you charge for private classes, Trevally? :D

volodya61

01-11-13, 02:13 PM

After all, I think our first test will be about the trav / elev tolerance factors. I wan to see if they fix this damn gun :03:

If I set trav/elev tolerance values to 1, will this reduce error? What do you think?

How much do you charge for private classes, Trevally? :D

really Private classes :har:

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4176/trevallytutorials.png

Trevally.

01-11-13, 02:13 PM

I can do it for you - send me your mission and let me know what date you want it to take place:up:

Trevally.

01-11-13, 02:21 PM

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/114/sexyteachersensualdesir.jpg

Don't mind Helga - she comes in to clean the board for me.

:Kaleun_Salivating:

gap

01-11-13, 02:25 PM

If I set trav/elev tolerance values to 1, will this reduce error? What do you think?

I have just set it to 0 (you know:I like to overdo), and I think I've discovered something new: the gun was following its target, but held fire, as if it was looking for a perfect aim before firing. :hmm2:

as their name is suggesting, the two tolerance factors are probably the angular deviation from the ideal trajectory to the target, at which the AI will think that its aim is good enough to start firing... I will carry one some more testing after dinner

I can do it for you - send me your mission and let me know what date you want it to take place:up:

Whatever date. I doesn't matter for me. What I would like, is having a mission for each Flak gun available as boat upgrade, and our U-boat being equipped with just one of them in each mission... :yep:

Don't mind Helga - she comes in to clean the board for me.

:Kaleun_Salivating:

a fellow subsim member, I suppose :hmmm:

volodya61

01-11-13, 03:26 PM

I think I've discovered something new: the gun was following its target, but held fire, as if it was looking for a perfect aim before firing. :hmm2:

just tested values 0 and 1 for both parameters (trav & elev)

0 - hold fire, but follow target
1 - no hits, all shots below the target, as in previous tests

:/\\!! :rotfl2:

gap

01-11-13, 03:38 PM

just tested values 0 and 1 for both parameters (trav & elev)

0 - hold fire, but follow target
1 - no hits, all shots below the target, as in previous tests

:/\\!! :rotfl2:

Exactly the same here... :hmm2:

wait, I want to see what the restr_dist property (under obj_Turret => Debug) does. Setting show_restr to 'Yes' should display in game what this setting is for... or at least I hope so...

volodya61

01-11-13, 06:14 PM

gap

01-11-13, 06:41 PM

I'm currently translating into Russian the files for Equipment Upgrade Fix and came across the text of the special abilities.. :hmmm: how the special abilities may affect to AA-guns accuracy?

All my tests in campaign were done using the crew with the gunner's special abilities.. :hmmm:

I ignore it, but probably Rongel can give us some detail :up:

P.S: I've found this old post from a thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=192751) in SHIII Mods Workshop:

Finally some1 else has found the DEACCURACY Tweak I have been useing on ALL Guns

This is the 1 that I have been using for ages to DEACCURTISE the DG with. Ok to explain it better.

The Traverse and Elavaion Tolarance is used to gyro stabilise the Gun. This is done by giving the gun a SET Degree of MOVEMENT that you determine BEFORE the movement of the subs hull is imposed on the Gun. So therefor IF you have given the tolarance to the guns of say 10Â° this means that the gun has 10Â° of inderpendent movement BEFORE the subs movement effects the gun. Hence to DEACCURTISE the gun you REDUCE the movement. On the DG I have been using 0.75Â° for both Elevation and Traverse, for all other Flack Guns I have been using 0.5Â°. Now what happens is that the DG can only track the target for 0.75Â° of inderpendent movment before the subs heaving is imposed on the gun, BUT this is the good part, this will SLOW down the Fire rate as the AI will NOT fire the Gun untill its ON target. It also means that they have more accurate MISS shots to btw what I mean by that is that you will get over an unders as before but now closer to the taget. With this imposed I have redone all weps and shells to reflect true values on Range, Damage and refire rates. This is the reason I always said that Beery was wrong, You CAN fix the DG!

Now go at it an enjoy

PS: Ohh btw this will also effect the player when he uses the gun's, but for best results let the AI man the guns an shoot only, after all Captains didn't go running around a sub maning every thing them selves. You have a crew, let them do their job and you do yours.

In a nutshell, if what this guy is saying proves true, the effect of the two tolerance factors is just the opposite of what we supposed so far! :rotfl2:

I think tomorrow another hard testing session is waiting for us :-?

volodya61

01-11-13, 07:35 PM

In a nutshell, if what this guy is saying proves true, the effect of the two tolerance factors is just the opposite of what we supposed so far! :rotfl2:

I think tomorrow another hard testing session is waiting for us :-?

To be honest, I have little understood from this post.. :oops:
I correctly understand that now we should increase the values rather than decrease them?

flostt

01-11-13, 09:28 PM

Don't mind Helga - she comes in to clean the board for me.

:Kaleun_Salivating:

:k_rofl::Kaleun_Applaud:

V13dweller

01-11-13, 11:57 PM

Want me to create the mission for you? just tell me what to do, and ill see if I can do it. :)
And a bit of info relating to the Auxiliary cruisers guns, yes, they do get them based on the year.

gap

01-12-13, 05:15 AM

To be honest, I have little understood from this post.. :oops:
I correctly understand that now we should increase the values rather than decrease them?

Yes, it is probably written in a worst english than mine. :haha:
What I've understood is that the two tolerance settings are sort of maximum gyroscopic stabilization angles, and that they affect the guns' aim for both AI and human player. If that was true, it would imply that:

1. the higher their value, the steadier the gun, the more accurate its aim;

2. the higher the wind speed, the bigger more noticeable their effect

3. by playing with train/elevation tolerance and speed settings, we can destabilize deck and flak guns without fiddling with trickier parameters ;)

Want me to create the mission for you? just tell me what to do, and ill see if I can do it. :)
And a bit of info relating to the Auxiliary cruisers guns, yes, they do get them based on the year.

Thank you for your offer, V13dweller :up:

Right now I would be happy enough if I could test the improved C/30 and the twin C/38 flak guns in custom mission. I want to see if they are affected by the same systematic error as the "regular" C/30.

I don't know if Volodya has other requests, though :)

Rongel

01-12-13, 05:16 AM

I ignore it, but probably Rongel can give us some detail :up:

Stock special abilities influence gunner in this way:

There are two passive abilities, boost guns and reduce reload time.

Boost guns is like this: 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

So when maxed out, it gives +30 % to all aspects of gunning (if all of them work or not is a mystery to me).

Stock Reduce reload time drops the time to -50 % when at max. My special abilities mod uses -20 % value. I guess these affect both the deck gun and the AA gun.

Hope this helps!

gap

01-12-13, 05:51 AM

Stock special abilities influence gunner in this way:

There are two passive abilities, boost guns and reduce reload time.

Boost guns is like this: 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

So when maxed out, it gives +30 % to all aspects of gunning (if all of them work or not is a mystery to me).

Stock Reduce reload time drops the time to -50 % when at max. My special abilities mod uses -20 % value. I guess these affect both the deck gun and the AA gun.

Hope this helps!

Thank you Rongel, it helps a lot indeed! :up:

If I didn't misunderstood your explications, they would entail that gun specific parameters (in their respective sim files), should be set for the lowest possible performance.
In any case, we will have an hard time finetuning guns specs and passive ability settings, but it is something we have to deal with, I think.

By the way: where are these settings found? :hmmm:
Do you happen to know if the crew veterancy settings in custom mission do have the same effect as passive abilities in campaign? I am induced to think so, since there are 5 ability levels in campaign and 5 veterancy levels in mission...

P.S: have you seen what I said about gun's stabilization in my previous post? I know you have fiddled a lot in an attempt to destabilize player's guns....

volodya61

01-12-13, 06:03 AM

What I've understood is that the two tolerance settings are sort of maximum gyroscopic stabilization angles, and that they affect the guns' aim for both AI and human player. If that was true, it would imply that:
1. the higher their value, the steadier the gun, the more accurate its aim;
1. the higher the wind speed, the bigger more noticeable their effect
2. by playing with train/elevation tolerance and speed settings, we can destabilize deck and flak guns without fiddling with trickier parameters ;)

This explanation is much more clearly :yeah:

I don't know if Volodya has other requests, though :)

I don't know.. You are the Chief! :up:

Boost guns is like this: AbilityType=GunsAccuracy, GunsDamage, GunsRange, ShellDrag, ShellSpeed ;increase gun accuracy, damage and range (in percents)

gap

01-12-13, 06:05 AM

Another parameter that could affect crew's aiming effciency:

GunsCoef, found in:

data\UPCDataGE\UPCUnitsData\UnitParts?VII?.upc (one file for each playable sub)

gap

01-12-13, 06:24 AM

This explanation is much more clearly :yeah:

except for the fact that I messed up numbers :oops: :D

I don't know.. You are the Chief! :up:

There are no bosses here, we are all colleagues :O:

Out of jokes, I think my work plan collapsed due to the total unreliability (or I should better say: due to the systematic inefficency) of the C30 gun we are testing, even under the most favourable conditions we could think of for it to hit its target.

From what I have seen, under the same conditions, higher caliber guns are by far more efficient (1 shot 1 hit!). If you want, you can start testing on them about the effect of different tolerance settings on their stabilization. In a matter of minutes I will send you a mission where your U-boat is fitted with two 37 mm flak guns (I don't remember which model though) and 1 flakvierling. :up:

EDIT:

here it is:

http://rapidshare.com/files/2002255920/AA%20Guns%20Test%20Missions.rar

select the type VIIC/41 for your tests, and try playing with diffrent tolerance factors and wind speeds/directions. Try also adjusting crew rating, if needed. IIRC, it is currently maxed out...

Trevally.

01-12-13, 06:30 AM

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1322702&postcount=61
:hmmm:

gap

01-12-13, 06:36 AM

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1322702&postcount=61
:hmmm:

Thank you Trev, I will have a close look at that thread! :yeah:

volodya61

01-12-13, 06:54 AM

here it is:

OK.. I took it..

the .sim files to edit are 37mmM, 37mmSA, 37mmTSA and Vierling.. am I right?

gap

01-12-13, 06:59 AM

OK.. I took it..

the .sim files to edit are 37mmM, 37mmSA, 37mmTSA and Vierling.. am I right?

absolutely :up:

volodya61

01-12-13, 07:20 AM

absolutely :up:

will report the results later.. :salute:

:D

gap

01-12-13, 08:38 AM

Added Reworked Morale & Abilities by Rongel to the compatibility list in post #1 :up:

Moreover, I added a list of "dinosaurs", whose features could be partly ported to the present mod, if permission is given by their authors. They include:

Wamphyri's Plane Attack Mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1309433#post1309433) by Wamphyri
Funelsmoke, Planes and Sounds (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1306223#post1306223) by AOTD_MadMax
Rückkehr der Asse (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1297685#post1297685) by AOTD_MadMax.

Anyone wanting to have a closer look at them? Their download links are mostly inactive, but I have all of them on my HD :cool:

THE_MASK

01-12-13, 06:55 PM

off topic , would you know which cam is for your avatar ?
Silent Hunter 5\data\Library\cameras.cam

gap

01-12-13, 07:04 PM

off topic , would you know which cam is for your avatar ?
Silent Hunter 5\data\Library\cameras.cam

No idea :hmm2:

Rongel

01-13-13, 04:03 AM

Thank you Rongel, it helps a lot indeed! :up:

By the way: where are these settings found? :hmmm:

I guess you have found them already, but in data/UPCDataGE/UPCCrewData/SpecialAbilities.upc

Do you happen to know if the crew veterancy settings in custom mission do have the same effect as passive abilities in campaign? I am induced to think so, since there are 5 ability levels in campaign and 5 veterancy levels in mission...

No idea, sorry!

P.S: have you seen what I said about gun's stabilization in my previous post? I know you have fiddled a lot in an attempt to destabilize player's guns....

Ugh, that was my first attempts at modding, didn't work out, and can't remember anything, maybe the old thread will be more helpful!

About the torpedo malfunctions... yesterday I tested different values like crazy and got good results. It seems all the other malfunction types work like they should, so there is a point making this mod.

Torpedo can prematurely explode when using magnetic detonation, it can be a dud (hit and not detonate), it can deviate from it's course or it can be a circle runner. I haven't tested the depth keeping, but I hope it works too.

It seems also that the different date-settings work on all other malfunctions except TDW's duds. Only problem is now that duds don't work on imported ships, and that the dud values don't change when war progresses. Otherwise it looks alright, except that testing these is sooo slowwww.... :/\\!!

Back to reading!

gap

01-13-13, 05:28 AM

I guess you have found them already, but in data/UPCDataGE/UPCCrewData/SpecialAbilities.upc

No, I didn't. Thank you! :)

No idea, sorry!

Another point blank question: Do you know if there are similar (crew veterancy depandant) settings for AI guns?

About the torpedo malfunctions... yesterday I tested different values like crazy and got good results. It seems all the other malfunction types work like they should, so there is a point making this mod.

Torpedo can prematurely explode when using magnetic detonation, it can be a dud (hit and not detonate), it can deviate from it's course or it can be a circle runner. I haven't tested the depth keeping, but I hope it works too.

Definitely good news! :up:

It seems also that the different date-settings work on all other malfunctions except TDW's duds.

That's good news also: it means that TDW could possibly fix his patch when, hopefully, he will be back. Fingers crossed...

Only problem is now that duds don't work on imported ships, and that the dud values don't change when war progresses.

Wonder if the dud-immune dat ships issue can be fixed either. On the other hand I wouldn't worry too much about it, since one day these ships will be converted into GR2 units... or at least we hope so ;)

Regarding the date-specific damage settings not being apllied, and your suggestion to duplicate the existing torpedoes, I know Silentmichael is currently attempting to do the same (cloning a GR2 file). I asked him to keep in touch whenever he discovers anyhing new, and I am sure he will assist us when it will be our turn to do the same :D

Otherwise it looks alright, except that testing these is sooo slowwww.... :/\\!!

Yes, I can understand you. I hate like you the long waiting times. :shifty: :nope:
Talking about it, are torpedo malfunctions applied in outside the campaign? Testing them in custom mission could speed up a bit the whole process...

Rongel

01-13-13, 07:15 AM

Another point blank question: Do you know if there are similar (crew veterancy depandant) settings for AI guns?

No idea again, I guess picking veterancy level in mission editor affects it, but now idea how.

Regarding the date-specific damage settings not being apllied, and your suggestion to duplicate the existing torpedoes, I know Silentmichael is currently attempting to do the same (cloning a GR2 file). I asked him to keep in touch whenever he discovers anyhing new, and I am sure he will assist us when it will be our turn to do the same :D

Ok, good to hear!

Talking about it, are torpedo malfunctions applied in outside the campaign? Testing them in custom mission could speed up a bit the whole process...

Yep, testing malfunctions in custom missions! :up:

I have now gathered some info on the malfunctions. Bottom line seems to be that in the start of the war the torpedoes were really unreliable, G7e was even worse than the old G7a. Both magnetic and contact pistols were faulty, but magnetic pistol was almost unusable. Malfunction percent was something like 30%-40%. Magnetic pistol torpedoes detonated prematurely or passed the ships bottom, and contact pistol torpedoes had serious depth keeping problems. Some torpedoes steered of course or in rare cases were "circle runners". Actual duds weren't the biggest issue. Torpedo problems culminated in the Operation Weserubung where almost every torpedo failed. At this time Germans worked hard to figure out the problems and some real improvements were made.

During the "Happy Times" (late may - the end of 1940) things were better, magnetic pistol was abandoned completely (and not used before 1942 again) and AZ impact detonation was used. AZ pistol was improved by now and the depth keeping problem was reduced.

Thats what I have learned now! So at start of the war we need to have really lousy torpedos, and improve them already in the middle of 1940! To be continued...

gap

01-13-13, 09:43 AM

I have now gathered some info on the malfunctions. Bottom line seems to be that in the start of the war the torpedoes were really unreliable, G7e was even worse than the old G7a.

Really? I was convinced that the opposite was true :88)

Both magnetic and contact pistols were faulty, but magnetic pistol was almost unusable. Malfunction percent was something like 30%-40%. Magnetic pistol torpedoes detonated prematurely or passed the ships bottom, and contact pistol torpedoes had serious depth keeping problems. Some torpedoes steered of course or in rare cases were "circle runners". Actual duds weren't the biggest issue.

Excellent, or rather... awful :dead:
By chance could you extract from your readings some approximate percentage figures for each specific malfunction type?

Torpedo problems culminated in the Operation Weserubung where almost every torpedo failed. At this time Germans worked hard to figure out the problems and some real improvements were made.

Regarding Operation Weserubung, I remember having read that German magnetic deonators didn't like the vicinity to the polar north; in addition, the disturbance on magnetic fields by the Norwegian Fjords could have contributed as well. But indeed there is no way that we can simulate it in game.

During the "Happy Times" (late may - the end of 1940) things were better, magnetic pistol was abandoned completely (and not used before 1942 again) and AZ impact detonation was used. AZ pistol was improved by now and the depth keeping problem was reduced.

Thats what I have learned now! So at start of the war we need to have really lousy torpedos, and improve them already in the middle of 1940! To be continued...

:up:

I am eagerly looking forward for the next chapter. Keep on your great work, Rongel!

volodya61

01-13-13, 11:56 AM

Yesterday took a break and didn't test anything..
Now started a single mission and noticed that the sub is equipped with two C/38-twin guns and one 37 mm.. so I decided to set the Ammo=0 for the 37mm gun and test only the couple of C/38.. then will test the contrary..

to be continued.. :D

gap

01-13-13, 12:02 PM

I have just tested the AA gun's fix by Wamphyri (actually I've just tested just the 20 mm standard flak), and I got to say that it is working. It sufficed changing the obj_Turret => Elevation => gun_anim => start_index setting from 4.8 to 5.8. :yep:

Thank you Trevally for putting me in the right direction! :up:

Fixing other guns, where required, shouldn't be a problem now. Provided that we manage to get our U-boat fitted with one of them in game...

Volodya, when you want we can keep on our tests now :)

A bit offtopic: I was trying to adjust maximum and minimum elevation angles to historical values, and I've noticed that when manning the gun manually, the camera doesn't follow gun's aim, which gets therefore out of view at the most extreme angles. Is there anyone who knws how to fix this problem?

I suppose that adjusting camera's angular angle or angular range should do the trick, but I don't know where to find these parameters. Both Gun Station Controller (in 20mm_C30.sim) and Cam User Data controller (in 20mm_C30.cam) make reference to 'Cam_A01Gun'. I looked for it in cameras.cam, but with no joy :hmmm:

gap

01-13-13, 12:05 PM

Now started a single mission and noticed that the sub is equipped with two C/38-twin guns and one 37 mm..

two C/38 twin in a single mission?!! :sunny:

:Kaleun_Salivating:

Pass them on immediately! :D

volodya61

01-13-13, 12:24 PM

:o
but.. it was your single mission #2.. VIIC/41.. two C/38-twin at the top platform and one 37mm with the shield at the bottom one..

gap

01-13-13, 12:42 PM

:o
but.. it was your single mission #2.. VIIC/41.. two C/38-twin at the top platform and one 37mm with the shield at the bottom one..

:oops: :har:

I think I was so pissed to look for that damn gun, that when I finally managed to get in in a custom mission, I forgot to have a closer look to it, and mistook it for a flakvierlig...

volodya61

01-14-13, 12:50 PM

To make sure decided to test the old plan of tests.. here are the results:

ahead standard, battlestations activated, ammo 20mmC38Twin AA-500 AP-500, ammo 37mmSA-0

test 1: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 0.00 test mod (AA Max error angle=0)
close range - 240/20/110

test 2: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 2.25 test mod
close - 80/30/190

test 3: SH5 + IRAI (AA Max error angle=4.5, this is our "blank" that any other test will be copared with)
close - 40/20/20, battlestations deactivated - 70
medium - 280/600/1000(were hits but not downed), battlestations deactivated - 480
long - 270/140/430, battlestations deactivated - 1000 (no hits)

test 4: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 6.75 test mod
close - 120/30/80

test 5: SH5 + IRAI + ErrAng 9.00 test mod
close - 70/60/30

Hits mainly have a random character and occur most often in the vicinity of the sub.. still often gunners shoot below the target especially at long range..
But now we can with confidence answer the following question -

is the Max error angle (Sim.cfg) applied to player's guns, or not?

No it is not..

Maybe you have any new plans/thoughts for tests that I could make?

gap

01-14-13, 01:14 PM

is the Max error angle (Sim.cfg) applied to player's guns, or not?

No it is not..

Thank you Volodya, :yeah:

We were prepared to this answer but, quoting you, better making it sure :03:

Maybe you have any new plans/thoughts for tests that I could make?

Yes, please matey,

I am currently trying to adjust max/min Flak elevations (it requires using different start_index/end_index gun_anim settings than the ones found by Wamphyri).

In the meanwhile you could test the effect of the tolerance factors on the standard C/30 Flak gun. I would test it using test mission #2 and selecting the type VIIC, which is equipped with a Flak on top of its conning tower (useful for testing in rough seas).

Before running the mission you should set the elevation end_index of the ested gun to 5.8, in order to make it to aim correctly. :yep:

For your tests, try using different wind and both trav and elev settings. If required, you might want to adjust crew veterancy leve as well. If possible, try reporting the results of your tests in numerical form.

That's all, I think. Keep up the great work, and thank you again for your time! :sunny:

volodya61

01-14-13, 01:33 PM

I am currently trying to adjust max/min Flak elevations (it requires using different start_index/end_index gun_anim settings than the ones found by Wamphyri).
....
Before running the mission you should set the elevation end_index of the ested gun to 5.8, in order to make it to aim correctly. :yep:

Could you give me an example to what extent/limit change these values (start_index/end_index) please?

If possible, try reporting the results of your tests in numerical form.

What exactly do you mean?

gap

01-14-13, 02:34 PM

Could you give me an example to what extent/limit change these values (start_index/end_index) please?

I really don't know how these settings work and what their range should be, but it seems they are strictly related to gun's min/max elevation and train. A few examples:

-Reducing the minimum elevation from -10 to -20 (with no other changes), resulted in the gun aiming on top of its target.

-Reducing the maximum elevation from 75 to 10 (again, no other changes made), had an opposite result than expected: the gun was always extended all the way, very high on the horizon) and thus unable to aim to anything.

The visual range of gun's camera (when it is manned by the player), is also affected by the start_index/end_index factors: when I tried changing the min/max elevation angles respectively to -11/+85 (as per historical specs), not only the crew's aiming was affected negatively, but when I tried to use the gun manually and I zoomed in, at extreme angles the aim of the gun was out of the screen. When I increased the elevation end_index factor to about 6.55, gun's camera started again following the aim, and crew's aim got better, though the gunner was still quite bad at shooting down planes.

Stock settings for the two parameters are as follows:

- both of them set to 0 (both for traverse and elevation) for AI guns.

- start_index of sub flak guns normally 0, except for elevation start_index of 37 mm and 88 mm guns, where it is equal to the traverse end index.

- elevation start/end index settings identical to Training settings for all the other flak guns

As I wrote in my previous post, at stock elevation settings the best end_index factor for the standard C/30 gun is, no doubt, 5.8 (no other changes required). Optimal settings for other guns can be deduced from Wamphyri's plane mod (http://www.mediafire.com/?htq424ftbtg1dv7).

What exactly do you mean?

number of shots required to down the plane, or number plane's dives, before it gets shot down ;)

In order to reduce randomness, you could also reduce hurricane's hit points to 1 (1 shot=1 kill) in its zon file :up:

TheDarkWraith

01-14-13, 02:44 PM

gap

01-14-13, 03:52 PM

remember crew experience and how many points you have put into the gunner determine his accuracy also. It would be best to set your crew to elite and max out the gunner's points then you have something to test from (you have a solid reference point to gauge changes against).

For ease of testing, we are currently carrying out our gunnery trials in single mission, with sub crew's veterancy level maxed out. :yep:

Nonetheless, I doubt we can increase gunner's points during a single mission. Once finished with these preliminary tests, we will finetune the settings in campaign :up:

P.S: when you get time for it, can you please have a look to the following conversation between me and Rongel, about some possible flaws of your torpedo dud patch, and the possibility to clone the existing torpedoes:

A small update on torpedo duds. I did some tests and found out that the controls are quite broken. First issue is that lowering the torpedo speeds to reduce duds isn't working. The other is that date doesn't affect anything. I put the dud rate to 100% and between 1938-1943 and got the same effect in 1944 when the value was 0 %... Well at least that reduces the work amount for the mod!

Has anyone else got different results???

Is this with TDW's patch enabled? Is it possible that when fixing the general feature, he disabled speed and date controllers? :hmmm:

Yep, I have the latest patch running. It is possible that it has something to do with it, it could be that without the patch, imported ships would still react correctly to dud-rates, torpedo speeds and rates. But I can live without the low-speed reduction (even if that was historically accurate).
...

Other option is to try to make a new torpedo. We could make another TypeI torpedo that comes available in '43 that is much more reliable than the early war version. In this case we need to edit the torpedos GR2-file and add some stuff there, is that now possible with TDW's tool?

THIS is actually a good idea! :up:
we can clone existing torpedoes and, by setting wisely availability dates, slowly replace the dud ones with their improved versions... I could I have been so blind not to see it before? :88) :O:

I'm slowly moving my first setps into learning the tricks of TDW's GR2 editor. As far as I know, doing what you are suggesting should be possible.
Applying your idea would require just to edit the Id's of torpedo GR2 files to be cloned. If we manage to do it, what remains to be done is remapping the new Id's in sim/zon files, and updating them with the wanted settings. Boring task yes, but immune from complications :know:

About the torpedo malfunctions... yesterday I tested different values like crazy and got good results. It seems all the other malfunction types work like they should, so there is a point making this mod.

Torpedo can prematurely explode when using magnetic detonation, it can be a dud (hit and not detonate), it can deviate from it's course or it can be a circle runner. I haven't tested the depth keeping, but I hope it works too.

It seems also that the different date-settings work on all other malfunctions except TDW's duds. Only problem is now that duds don't work on imported ships, and that the dud values don't change when war progresses. Otherwise it looks alright, except that testing these is sooo slowwww.... :/\\!!

Back to reading!

What do you think? :hmm2:

volodya61

01-14-13, 04:27 PM

..number of shots required to down the plane..

Like here? - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1992844&postcount=216

In order to reduce randomness, you could also reduce hurricane's hit points to 1 (1 shot=1 kill) in its zon file :up:

Which one? :hmmm:
data\Air\AF_HurricaneMkI or data\Air\AFB_HurricaneMkIIc

gap

01-14-13, 04:42 PM

Like here? - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1992844&postcount=216

Like this: :up:

how may times the plane dived to attack us before it got shot down, or (even better) number of bullets left after downing it.

Which one? :hmmm:
data\Air\AF_HurricaneMkI or data\Air\AFB_HurricaneMkIIc

The Mk I :)

volodya61

01-14-13, 05:02 PM

The Mk I :)

There is no .zon file in this folder (data\Air\AF_HurricaneMkI).. only .cfg, .eqp, .sns..

gap

01-14-13, 05:21 PM

There is no .zon file in this folder (data\Air\AF_HurricaneMkI).. only .cfg, .eqp, .sns..

ops... I forgot it: the Hurricane Mk. I is a clone of the Mk II. Just edit Hawker_Hurricane_MKII.zon. You can do it in Goblin or in s3d editor :up:

volodya61

01-14-13, 07:46 PM

Gap, do you have accurate data of the number of shells/bullets on board subs for the deck and AA guns?.. want to make a complete revision of the weapon files for my mod-pack..
:salute:

gap

01-14-13, 09:31 PM

Gap, do you have accurate data of the number of shells/bullets on board subs for the deck and AA guns?.. want to make a complete revision of the weapon files for my mod-pack..
:salute:

Yes, more or less...

According to "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)", some typical U-boat's AA armaments would have been as follows:

- types VIIA, VIIB and VIIC: 1 x 20 mm C/30 gun with 1,100 rounds;
- type VIIC/41: 1 x 37 mm SK C/30U gun with 1,200 rounds and 2 x C/38 twin mount guns with 4,400 rounds

I don't know how corrected is this information. For sure it is not complete. Anyway, I would assign 1,100 rounds to each 20 mm gun (2,200 for twin mountings and 4,400 for quad) and 1,200 rounds to each 37 mm gun (2,400 for twin mountings), though I admit that these loadouts could result a bit excessive if the player equipped his boat with multiple twin and quad flak guns.

Unfortunately, afaik there's no way to limit the maximum number of rounds of a given type which can be carried aboard the sub (in game the total loadout is determined by the sum of the rounds assigned to each gun), whereas the small space aboard a real U-boat would have posed serious limitations.

Regarding outfits, Navweps reports about 25% of AP incendiary and 75% of HE incendiary rounds, for the 20 mm flaks (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_20mm-65_c30.htm). Nonetheless, according to "Naval Weapons of World War Two" by John Campbell, early outfits might have included HE rounds alone. As for 37 mm guns, according to the above sources, outfits were only HE with tracer for the SK C/30U (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-83_skc30.htm) gun, and 2/3 HE incendiary, 1/3 AP with tracer for Flak M42 (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-69_mk42.htm).

In respect to the 88 mm deckgun, the loadout reported by Warship Pictorial is 160 shells for the type VIIA, and 220 for the remaining models. According to Campbell, outfits for U-boats included exclusively HE and HE incendiary, with AP and starshells carried onboard minesweepers and subchasers alone. :yep:

Rongel

01-15-13, 04:48 AM

Good news, I think! Now it seems that all the different malfunction values work in different dates, even TDW's duds. If this is true, we don't need to clone the torpedoes.

I couldn't find any difference in custom missions concerning the different time periods. But when I tried my malfunction mod in campaign, there was a clear difference. Could it be that I don't know how to set the right date in the mission editor? I get the right date in the custom mission menu, but when in mission I click the log, it always reads first of june 1940 or something like that. And I always get the same radio message about mines being planted on British coasts. It's like the game is using year 1940 to simulate radio messages, maybe also torpedo loadouts? Similiar experiences?

Anyway,it looks good right now! I think I'm going to need some testers soon!

Echolot

01-15-13, 04:57 AM

Hi Rongel.

When you open your misge-file with notepad, first section, is the current date value same as date value?

[Mission]
IsVisible=true
MissionType=0
MissionDataType=0
MultiMissionType=0
IconIndex=1
IsTutorial=false
Year=1941
Month=5
Day=9
Hour=10
Minute=0
CurrentYear=1941
CurrentMonth=5
CurrentDay=9
CurrentHour=10
CurrentMinute=0
Fog=1
FogRand=0
Clouds=1
CloudsRand=0
Precip=0
PrecipRand=0
WindHeading=0
WindSpeed=11.000000
WindRand=0
WeatherRndInterval=5
SeaType=0
ActivationAchievements=

Rongel

01-15-13, 05:20 AM

Hi Rongel.

When you open your misge-file with notepad, first section, is the current date value same as date value?

Hi! No, the years are different, current year was the mysterious 1.1.1940, maybe this is the reason why I didn't see any difference in the results! Need to test this later, thanks! :salute:

volodya61

01-15-13, 07:47 AM

Yes, more or less...

Thank you, sir :)

It was very informative :up:
:salute:

gap

01-15-13, 07:50 AM

Good news, I think! Now it seems that all the different malfunction values work in different dates, even TDW's duds. If this is true, we don't need to clone the torpedoes.

:Kaleun_Party: :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

I couldn't find any difference in custom missions concerning the different time periods. But when I tried my malfunction mod in campaign, there was a clear difference. Could it be that I don't know how to set the right date in the mission editor? I get the right date in the custom mission menu, but when in mission I click the log, it always reads first of june 1940 or something like that. And I always get the same radio message about mines being planted on British coasts. It's like the game is using year 1940 to simulate radio messages, maybe also torpedo loadouts? Similiar experiences?

Yes, from what you are saying, it seems you alway tested the same date :doh: :D

There are 3 start date parameters which can be set in ME2. The first one is set from the 'add new mission' menu. The second start date box is found on the top bar and gets available for editing after adding a new mission, and the last one is accessed from menu Mission => Parameters.

I Ignore what is the exact meaning of these apparently similar parameters, but in order to avoid surprises I usually set the three of them to the same date ;)

gap

01-15-13, 07:57 AM

Thank you, sir :)

It was very informative :up:
:salute:

My pleasure, mate :salute:

Trevally.

01-15-13, 08:04 AM

want to make a complete revision of the weapon files for my mod-pack..
:salute:

:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up::Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Party:

Glad to hear you are still working on it Volodya:sunny:

Rongel

01-15-13, 02:48 PM

There are 3 start date parameters which can be set in ME2. The first one is set from the 'add new mission' menu. The second start date box is found on the top bar and gets available for editing after adding a new mission, and the last one is accessed from menu Mission => Parameters.

I Ignore what is the exact meaning of these apparently similar parameters, but in order to avoid surprises I usually set the three of them to the same date ;)

I tried this again, changed all three parameters with my own date, but when I open the .misge file there is again this mysterious year:

CurrentYear=1940
CurrentMonth=1
CurrentDay=1
CurrentHour=0
CurrentMinute=0

So I changed that also to my liking, and a vot! Everything works like it should, there is a correct date on the mission log, and all the torpedo malfunctions work like they should, no question about it! Only thing that I don't know if it works or not is the low speed malfunction reduction... well soon find out, after that it's just putting the data in right places. :sunny:

gap

01-15-13, 03:26 PM

I tried this again, changed all three parameters with my own date, but when I open the .misge file there is again this mysterious year:

CurrentYear=1940
CurrentMonth=1
CurrentDay=1
CurrentHour=0
CurrentMinute=0

weird... :hmmm:

So I changed that also to my liking, and a vot! Everything works like it should, there is a correct date on the mission log, and all the torpedo malfunctions work like they should, no question about it! Only thing that I don't know if it works or not is the low speed malfunction reduction... well soon find out, after that it's just putting the data in right places. :sunny:

...but who cares: :D
now it is time to celebrate your outstanding news :woot: :yeah:

gap

01-15-13, 07:43 PM

I think I have finally understood how the two start_index and end_index parameters (trav/elev gun_anim groups) are working for sub guns. Their format is in seconds, and they determine the actual min/max training and elevation angles.

Imagine that gun's animation, as previewed in Goblin Editor, was as a movie. We see it in a loop, but in reality it got a start and an end. If we wanted to set gun's min elevation, we should set as start_index the offset in second from the start of the movie corresponding to the desired minimum elevation angle. Likewise for maximum elevation. We should then set the min and max elevation parameters according to the agles that start and end idexes are pointing to in the animation.

For what I've seen min/max settings, determine the aiming of the gun when manned by the crew, whereas the trajectory of the fired shells is aligned with muzzle's z axis. If min/max settings are not matched with start/min index settings to represent the same (or very similar) angles, the gun gets crazy, because AI sees a different elevation than actually is.

If for example, end_index points to an elevation in the animation which is lower than the one set as max gun's elevation, our gunner will aim regularly below the target. Likewise, if max elevation is lower than what would be expected after compairing end_index with gun's animation, AI will aim on top of the target, no matter what is crew's experience. :yep:

This explains why, if we reduce max elevation without adjusting end_index, we obtain an opposite result than expected: far from having a reduced max elevation, the gun will be always over-elevated by the crew, whereas its elevation range will remain unchanged ;)

volodya61

01-15-13, 08:08 PM

Well.. can you explain it again, but now, like for child in kindergarten? maybe with numbers will be clearer.. :oops: :D

gap

01-15-13, 09:05 PM

Well.. can you explain it again, but now, like for child in kindergarten? maybe with numbers will be clearer.. :oops: :D

Okay :up:

Imagine gun's animation as a movie. Let's say that its duration is 5 seconds and that the first and last photograms are equal respectively to -20 and +80 deg.

If we wanted our gun to have an in-game elevation range of -10/+30, we should set accordingly elevation start_index and end_index. Since animation's angular range is equal to 80 - (-20) = 100 deg, we would calculate index settings as follows:

start_index = [-10 - (-20)] deg * 5 sec / 100 deg = 0.5 sec
end_index = [30 - (-20)] deg * 5 sec / 100 deg = 2.5 sec

These settings will determine the visual min/max elevation of the gun, and therefore the trajectory followed by its rounds. Now we have to set min and max elevation accordingly:

min = -10
max = 30

This is the elevation range seen by the AI, when aiming the gun. If we missed to match the visual/balistic range (start_index and end_index), and the aiming range (min and max), the mismatch would lead to wrong aiming, so simple :yep:

The only problem is that with the currently available tools, we cannot read from file neither animation's duration nor min/max elevation angles set in the animation. We can only estimate them or desume them from stock settings, provided that the latter are not wrong (btw: they are in many cases ;) :-?).

volodya61

01-15-13, 09:19 PM

Thanks.. more clearly.. :up:

PS: I feel like a boy with Down syndrome.. perhaps it's time to go to sleep.. :D

gap

01-15-13, 09:41 PM

Thanks.. more clearly.. :up:

PS: I feel like a boy with Down syndrome.. perhaps it's time to go to sleep.. :D

no, it isn't your fault... this system is actually a bit abstruse, but after many tests I am almost sure that it is the one used in game :yep:

P.S: tomorrow I will start testing with crew experience settings. I want to see wether/how they are applied to guns. Have you started testing the effects of tolerance factors?

volodya61

01-15-13, 09:56 PM

Have you started testing the effects of tolerance factors?

not yet.. edited files in the mod-pack..

gap

01-15-13, 10:03 PM

not yet.. edited files in the mod-pack..

Okay, take your time on it :salute:

volodya61

01-15-13, 10:17 PM

Okay, take your time on it :salute:

If you'll write to me the exact values that we need to test, I think it will succeed faster.. I'll just edit the files and test them.. :yep: :up:

gap

01-16-13, 08:03 AM

If you'll write to me the exact values that we need to test, I think it will succeed faster.. I'll just edit the files and test them.. :yep: :up:

доброе утро Володя :salute:

I think we can start with the following settings:

WIND SPEEDS
_________________________
| 15 kph | 10 kph | 5 kph |
______ =========================
|15 deg| test#1 | test#2 | test#3|
TOLERANCE ________________________________
|8 deg | test#4 | test#5 | test#6|
FACTORS ________________________________
|1 deg | test#7 | test#8 | test#9|
________________________________

For the above tests I would select test mission #2 and type VIIC U-boat with Wamphyri's fixed C/30 flak. Other suggested settings:

- crew experience: elite
- flak orders: fire at closing targets, medium range (battlestations activated)

You can start fro test #1 (wind speed 15 kph, trav/elev tolerance: 15 deg). If you notice that at these settings, the Flak cannot hit anything, try reducing the maximum wind speed or increasing the maximum tolerance so to enhance gun's aiming. If you do so, remember to adjust accordingly speed and/or tolerance settings of the remaining tests, so to keep a constant spacing between them (i.e. 15/10/5, 13/9/5, etc.)

Since the game is randomizing things a lot, the best would be carryin on as many tests of the same type (#1, #2, etc) as possible.

Results from each set of test should be reported as average number of bullets required to shoot down the hurricane. Standard deviation from average could be another useful indicator. :yep:

I remember you that we want to test wether tolerance factors are applied as maximum gyroscopic stabilization or not. If our assumption was true, we would espect tests #3, #6, and #9 (low wind speed and waves) to give similar results. On the other hand, at higher wind speeds, gun's accuracy should decrease for decreasing tolerance factors. :up: