engines

[edwardallen]

can the engines (electric or diesel) be controlled independant of one another

[theelite1500]

What?

I don't think so

[BillBam]

Nope when you are surfaced it is diesel and submerged it is electric...hard coded!

[merc4ulfate]

Why are you asking by the way.

Your controls control the engine speed no matter if it is electrical or diesel. You couldn't control the diesels underwater without a snorkel anyway. Electrics would be of poor materials management on the surface.

What were you looking for in asking?

[Sailor Steve]

I'll bet he wanted to know if you could run one forward and one reverse, or one on and one off. The "electric or diesel" might have been a little confusing.

It's a pity you can't run the electrics on the surface because that was how navigating in the harbor was done, and how decks-awash attacks were conducted.

[Red October1984]

I'll bet he wanted to know if you could run one forward and one reverse, or one on and one off. The "electric or diesel" might have been a little confusing.

It's a pity you can't run the electrics on the surface because that was how navigating in the harbor was done, and how decks-awash attacks were conducted.

That's what I first thought of.

Running one forward and one backward would help turning a lot easier. I think in SH2 you can use electric engines on the surface but I don't remember. :doh:

[edwardallen]

was wondering if motor should be shut down during repair to speed up
the process and keep running on other motor or to shut down both
during repair. seems it would be difficult to repair a motor while running.

[TorpX]

I would guess, that if an engine had significant damage, you wouldn't be able to run it anyway, but I'm not sure. The game is not all that sophisticated. Too bad, really.

[Red October1984]

@ edwardallen

Have you looked into Traveller's Mod?

That's the only thing I can think of that will change engine behavior.

[TheDarkWraith]

The only independent engine controls exist in SH5. The only reason it exists is because I patched it in :D

[Red October1984]

The only independent engine controls exist in SH5. The only reason it exists is because I patched it in :D

Hello Sir, have you ever thought of modding SH4?

I hear you do some good stuff with SH5. :D

[TorpX]

The only reason it exists is because I patched it in :D
He he, I could have guessed. :) :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Hello Sir, have you ever thought of modding SH4?

I hear you do some good stuff with SH5. :D

SH4 was shelved about 15mins after I started playing it. To me it was awful and I've never gone back to it.

SH5 has loads of potential just waiting to be unlocked. I have also decoded about 35% of the game so I have a very good understanding of how the game works :D

[Red October1984]

SH4 was shelved about 15mins after I started playing it. To me it was awful and I've never gone back to it.

Ah...that's a shame. We need more strong modders in the SH4 Forums.

Doctor! Get this man to the ER! There's obviously a problem here! :03:

[ETR3(SS)]

SH4 was shelved about 15mins after I started playing it. To me it was awful and I've never gone back to it.

SH5 has loads of potential just waiting to be unlocked. I have also decoded about 35% of the game so I have a very good understanding of how the game works :DCan't blame you there, I did the very same thing after I got it. It took me a couple of years to pick it back up and by that time 1.5 was out. MUCH better than the release.

[TorpX]

SH4 was shelved about 15mins after I started playing it. To me it was awful and I've never gone back to it.


That's why we need expert modders, like yourself, who can fix it. :D

[joefremont]

Being able to control the left prop and the right prop independently would be cool, the other day I pulled into the harbor at midway island and had to do a seven point turn to get back out. being able to reverse one prop while having the other forward would have made that much easier.

[TorpX]

Of more importance to me, would be having the correct no. of engines, and properly modeled engines and batteries. These items are of critical importance, after all.

[ETR3(SS)]

Agreed. An accurately modeled propulsion system would be great.

[Gryffon300]

can the engines (electric or diesel) be controlled independant of one another

I totally agree with the implication from TorpX's post, that actually being able to step into the shoes of the Engineer and having a correctly modelled propulsion system and drive-train with attendant (optional) responsibilities to manage and maintain them would be a nice addition (though I know that many wouldn't give a bilge-rat's). It's the same argument about why we have any independently-manageable station: why have TDC or radar/sonar or gun stations if you only want to Boss the Boat? We guys with greasy hands got to get Respect, too, ja? What are we, chopped liver?

Yes, I would like for there to be some of the same engine control flexibility that I used to enjoy (I think it was in SH I).

On long cruises, one regularly experienced the need to shut down one engine for a few hours for break-down or service maintenance. That dropped speed by a third or so. It was a fitting punishment for running on Flank for too long (I'd forgotten about that!). It certainly taught me good engine management - run those diesels at the top of the Green , with only occasional spurts (an hour or so, max) into All Ahead Panic. (If its good enough to have dud torps, having breakdown maintenance issues throughout the sub would be a worthy random realism addition. Having a couple of reliability SNAFUs on a cruise would be character-building.

Another nice option - to run one engine as a generator only. By running it in neutral, you sacrifice speed, obviously, but can re-charge batteries much more quickly (sort of the opposite scenario in SH IV where you can turn off the recharge to squeeze an extra knot or two when going for a hot intercept).

Finally, as others have identified, the ability to use engine-steering was great in tight situations (especially infiltrating around harbour sub-nets and such), but more normally, as any skipper of a twin-screw stink-boat of any description will attest when marina manoeuvring, you gotta have it! :rock:

[Stealhead]

Such a mod would require a lot of work for starters the S-boats had propulsion just like German U-boats.So the mod would have to also make the S-boats behave correctly which would be one engine on propulsion and one on the generator.In the stock game they do work this way.

It is the other boats the fleet boats that need the details added.I do wonder though what effects will altering the engine behavior alter fuel consumption and battery charging.I say this because I know that both TMO and RFB altered this aspect to some extent from stock.

[TorpX]

It's the same argument about why we have any independently-manageable station: why have TDC or radar/sonar or gun stations if you only want to Boss the Boat?
Well put. :yep:

[CptLoonee]

SH4 was shelved about 15mins after I started playing it. To me it was awful and I've never gone back to it.

SH5 has loads of potential just waiting to be unlocked. I have also decoded about 35% of the game so I have a very good understanding of how the game works :D

To me, playing stock SHIV is like playing Stock IL-2 1946.

It really shines with the supermods the community has invested.

From what I hear, you'd only make it better.

Not trying to tell you what to do, only saying SHIV clearly has FAR exceeded even the wildest dreams of its potential because of people like you working to better the game.

[CptLoonee]

Being able to control the left prop and the right prop independently would be cool, the other day I pulled into the harbor at midway island and had to do a seven point turn to get back out. being able to reverse one prop while having the other forward would have made that much easier.

It would certainly make submerged parallel parking alongside the wreckage of a light carrier in order to shield my sub from angry destroyers in shallow Manilla bay easier.

Strangely specific, I know, but hey...it happens!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9kciYLvo_k

[Sailor Steve]

And exactly how does it happen without the magic cheat of external views?

[CptLoonee]

And exactly how does it happen without the magic cheat of external views?

LOL good point. However, I think I could have done it (in game) with just periscope views. It just wouldn't be as dramatic.

I seriously doubt that this would have been possible in most real world conditions though.

[Stealhead]

Still no submarine would ever attempt to get that close to an enemy vessel of that size while on the bottom.It is totally unrealistic and violates that playing mentality.It did not look like driving your sub up to that CVL was difficult at all.What luck you have dodging DCs when you cam your self onto the attacking DD so you know exactly what his pattern will be:hmm2:.Your play style nullifies all of the AI changes that make TMO challenging.

I agree with Steve that video was a bit too Disney it was very "U-571" and not very "Das Boot".Not my style of game play but if that floats your boat or keeps it trim knock yourself out.:yep:

[CptLoonee]

Still no submarine would ever attempt to get that close to an enemy vessel of that size while also still in a combat situation.It is totally unrealistic and violates that playing mentality.

Yes, yes, Given the conditions and situation, few, if any would have even attacked, because there was literally nowhere to run or hide.

So, yes, you are right, I was "unrealistic" in my audaciousness, and would never have tried that in real life, not just because there would be more variables working against me, but because, if it didn't work, I could not hit "Load Game."

All of that is a given...

Still, this was way more fun than sitting on the bottom, waiting until nightfall and creeping out of there and trying to retreat to Java.

[Stealhead]

Still, this was way more fun than sitting on the bottom, waiting until nightfall and creeping out of there and trying to retreat to Java.

To you perhaps but my idea of fun is not knowing the disposition of the enemy and trying my best to elude them.That would mean to me if I sat my boat in the mud usually they got stuck by accident and had to sit there a hope that the IJN assumed that the sub was sunk while they where sitting ducks.

The unknown tension is the excitement for me.

So I gather you argument is that you play "dead is dead" so it is ok to use all the magic tricks.You play dead is dead yet you use magic tricks that pretty much eliminate the likelihood that you actually will die. :hmmm: I refer to Steve's quote by Rockin Robbins then.Again I am not trying to knock you but you seem to on one hand claim "look how hard the game settings I have are" (manual target and all that) and I play "dead is dead" yet you use the free cam liberally which removes 100% of the challenge and makes you have a gods eye view which means that you really have no actual likelihood of making a mistake or getting outsmarted by the AI to actually become KIA and have to instate your "dead is dead rule" when really you play in an arcade style which is just fine in and of itself if that is what you like my nit pick is that you proclaim in some posts to play "realistically".

[CptLoonee]

To you perhaps but my idea of fun is not knowing the disposition of the enemy and trying my best to elude them.That would mean to me if I sat my boat in the mud usually they got stuck by accident and had to sit there a hope that the IJN assumed that the sub was sunk while they where sitting ducks.

The unknown tension is the excitement for me.

So I gather you argument is that you play "dead is dead" so it is ok to use all the magic tricks.You play dead is dead yet you use magic tricks that pretty much eliminate the likelihood that you actually will die. :hmmm: I refer to Steve's quote by Rockin Robbins then.Again I am not trying to knock you but you seem to on one hand claim "look how hard the game settings I have are" (manual target and all that) and I play "dead is dead" yet you use the free cam liberally which removes 100% of the challenge and makes you have a gods eye view which means that you really have no actual likelihood of making a mistake or getting outsmarted by the AI to actually become KIA and have to instate your "dead is dead rule" when really you play in an arcade style which is just fine in and of itself if that is what you like my nit pick is that you proclaim in some posts to play "realistically".


*Sigh* no. Look, I just thought it was an amusing video that pertained to the issue of tight maneuvering and was kind of fun (and it would not be possible to create much of a cinematic video without at least some external views)

While I don't really feel a need to justify my chosen gameplay style, I will explain it just to avoid confusion with other posts.

While I find automatic aiming to be FAR too easy and believe it strips away what is, for ME, the most fun part of an essential feature of submarine combat, I don't mind if other people find automatic firing more fun. Some like to be more of a spectator on a ship than actually in control.

MOST of the time I play, I refrain from externals completely and go for as much realism as the game allows (with the exception of map contacts, which I personally find manually plotting to be simply tedious without adding much else to the game), BUT, I also know that makes for piss poor videos, so occasionally, when interesting possibilities arise, I attempt what I like to think of as an "alternate universe scenario."

I think of it a little like what my fictional captain might fantasize trying if he didn't have 80+ lives he is responsible for.

It just so happens that the game is far more tolerant of actualizing these little escapades than real life is! - As games are wont to be.

So, as usual, at the moment, I have two campaigns in progress. One, the more realistic approach to see how I can manage trying to impose on myself some of the real world restrictions and tactics that are not always necessary in this rudimentary simulation, and the second, the "For sh*ts and giggles" campaign, where I play my sub captain like he is the Naval equivalent of Indiana Jones and the campaign is like a weekly serial produced to sell war bonds back home lol.

[Stealhead]

*Sigh* no. Look, I just thought it was an amusing video that pertained to the issue of tight maneuvering and was kind of fun (and it would not be possible to create much of a cinematic video without at least some external views)

While I don't really feel a need to justify my chosen gameplay style, I will explain it just to avoid confusion with other posts.

While I find automatic aiming to be FAR too easy and believe it strips away what is, for ME, the most fun part of an essential feature of submarine combat, I don't mind if other people find automatic firing more fun. Some like to be more of a spectator on a ship than actually in control.

MOST of the time I play, I refrain from externals completely and go for as much realism as the game allows (with the exception of map contacts, which I personally find manually plotting to be simply tedious without adding much else to the game), BUT, I also know that makes for piss poor videos, so occasionally, when interesting possibilities arise, I attempt what I like to think of as an "alternate universe scenario."

I think of it a little like what my fictional captain might fantasize trying if he didn't have 80+ lives he is responsible for.

It just so happens that the game is far more tolerant of actualizing these little escapades than real life is! - As games are wont to be.

So, as usual, at the moment, I have two campaigns in progress. One, the more realistic approach to see how I can manage trying to impose on myself some of the real world restrictions and tactics that are not always necessary in this rudimentary simulation, and the second, the "For sh*ts and giggles" campaign, where I play my sub captain like he is the Naval equivalent of Indiana Jones and the campaign is like a weekly serial produced to sell war bonds back home lol.

I was not trying to say that it was a bad video I just had the one reference and must assume that that is your regular play style. I am not really sure why you choose to call the game a rudimentary simulation though.:06: Of course it is not 100% realistic but it pretty good and can be modded to be even better.If sH4 is rudimentary then what is a game like "Battle Stations Pacific"? Which is what I would consider to rudimentary from a simulation standpoint

Also I was not trying to call out how you play I was pointing out given the evidence that your own promotion of your play style seemed to conflict how you play based on video evidence.


What I objected to is not how you play I really do not care honestly (even though you keep explaining how you play though you claim you feel no need to justify explaining how you play) it is how you tout much about realism yet the available evidence at the time displayed anything but realism.

Videos displaying actions in SH4 with under high realism are available on youtube and some have fairly high view ratios so not everyone gets bored by viewing that kind of play.Your Nautilus video is much better done if you ask me.

Anyway in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter and numerous threads of this very subject have run for pages and pages.

[CptLoonee]

I was not trying to say that it was a bad video I just had the one reference and must assume that that is your regular play style. I am not really sure why you choose to call the game a rudimentary simulation though.:06: Of course it is not 100% realistic but it pretty good and can be modded to be even better.If sH4 is rudimentary then what is a game like "Battle Stations Pacific"? Which is what I would consider to rudimentary from a simulation standpoint

Also I was not trying to call out how you play I was pointing out given the evidence that your own promotion of your play style seemed to conflict how you play based on video evidence.


What I objected to is not how you play I really do not care honestly (even though you keep explaining how you play though you claim you feel no need to justify explaining how you play) it is how you tout much about realism yet the available evidence at the time displayed anything but realism.

Videos displaying actions in SH4 with under high realism are available on youtube and some have fairly high view ratios so not everyone gets bored by viewing that kind of play.Your Nautilus video is much better done if you ask me.

Anyway in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter and numerous threads of this very subject have run for pages and pages.

Well let's be clear here. I have mentioned maybe once or twice that I only play the game with realistic targeting (because I find the firing mechanic to be far too simplistic and disconnected to be entertaining otherwise). That's a far cry from "touting full realism" at all times.

As for the simulation being rudimentary, you've mentioned yourself what a complicated system an actual WWII submarine is. This game doesn't come CLOSE to simulating the complexities of managing the vast array of interconnected systems that make these amazing machines work...and it's a good thing too!

A WWII sub sim similar in scope to the DCS Flight sim series would be mind-numbingly boring and over the head of the vast majority of even the most hard core Silent Hunter fans (although I have little doubt a bunch of us would at least TRY it!).

I consider Silent Hunter IV (RFB or TMO modded) to be the rough equivalent to IL-2 1946 (with the Ultrapack or HSFX supermods) - that is to say, a high degree of fidelity (much more than most arcade-like sims) for its generally simplified approach.

Finally, as for the videos, the Nautilus video is a 3 minute long clip, is almost entirely external AND was done before I went into the sim files and drastically reduced both the reload and traverse speeds of the guns! I'd say it's more fantastical than the full episode of the Tales From the Deep series.

I mean, I can understand if you liked it better cause it was just over a lot sooner, but not because it's more "realistic." lol

[Sailor Steve]

I agree with Steve that video was a bit too Disney it was very "U-571" and not very "Das Boot".Not my style of game play but if that floats your boat or keeps it trim knock yourself out.:yep:
I don't think I said that. In fact I was just making a crack about external views, and was only half serious at that.

[Armistead]

And exactly how does it happen without the magic cheat of external views?

I use the periscope, it works pretty well underwater with cams off.:D

Anyway, didn't watch the video, but realistic is as realistic does. The main thing is have fun.