[WIP] Improved Ship Physics [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

TorpX

02-14-14, 02:03 AM

Thanks Steve. If you could post or PM me what you have for surface ships. Ideally, a good example of every major ship type: small merchant, medium merchant, large merchant, patrol craft, destroyer, light cruiser, etc., etc. I consider the merchants and the DD's to be most important. There is no hurry though. I want to finish the subs first.

The way I have been testing the subs is to push them to maximum speed, then put them into a 180 deg. turn. I record the minimum speed reached, and the diameter of the turning circle. I know enough now to be able to manipulate the speed drop off, and turning circle (at least within limits).

I did get some help with the subs, so I can proceed with this part.

Also, does anyone know exactly what the stats are for the S-18 and S-42 classes are? The values used in RFB and what I found in Wikipedia and Valor at Sea are very different, and I'm not sure what to use.

S-18
displacement 800/1062 tons
draft 15.1 ft.

RFB
displacement 944/1325 tons
draft 17.25 ft.

On a less happy note, I am vexed by the issue of submerged range (i.e. battery capacity), and recharging. The RFB file values indicate a range of 100 mi. @ 5 kts., but the boat won't go much beyond 40!
Putting in larger numbers does no good. I can decrease the range, but have no way to increase it. This aspect of the game seems to be broken, but maybe someone has some secret knowledge about this.
I've played around with different things to try to beat this problem, but have only gotten very odd and undesirable results.

For example, I tried setting the range to 30 mi. @ 30 kts. to trick the game into allowing a greater range. Using 50% of the battery allowed ~ 22 mi., slightly better than with the 30 mi. @ 5 kts. (17 mi.), but when I tried recharging the battery, I found I had to recharge it for 4 days to get a 9% increase! At this rate, it would be better to leave the batteries in port, and become a surface raider. :nope:

cdp44

02-14-14, 07:59 AM

aanker

02-14-14, 01:16 PM

Also, does anyone know exactly what the stats are for the S-18 and S-42 classes are? The values used in RFB and what I found in Wikipedia and Valor at Sea are very different, and I'm not sure what to use.

S-18
displacement 800/1062 tons
draft 15.1 ft.

RFB
displacement 944/1325 tons
draft 17.25 ft.
----------
On a less happy note, I am vexed by the issue of submerged range (i.e. battery capacity), and recharging. The RFB file values indicate a range of 100 mi. @ 5 kts., but the boat won't go much beyond 40!
Putting in larger numbers does no good. I can decrease the range, but have no way to increase it. This aspect of the game seems to be broken, but maybe someone has some secret knowledge about this.
I've played around with different things to try to beat this problem, but have only gotten very odd and undesirable results.
For example, I tried setting the range to 30 mi. @ 30 kts. to trick the game into allowing a greater range. Using 50% of the battery allowed ~ 22 mi., slightly better than with the 30 mi. @ 5 kts. (17 mi.), but when I tried recharging the battery, I found I had to recharge it for 4 days to get a 9% increase! At this rate, it would be better to leave the batteries in port, and become a surface raider. :nope:You were/are at kickinbak right? Ducimus had a divine revelation - not a revolution - he liked to start those .... lol - just kidding... a divine inspiration and thought about battery life and fuel in a different light. The end result was to give a Propulsion expert special abilities in addition to changing the values in the sims.

Using tweaked sim settings I can sail submerged for over 98 nm @ 3 knots and run out of battery a little before the CO2 builds up to toxic levels a few hours later - around 48+/- hours.
I can also sail at the much used in real life, 'two-engine speed' - 15 knots - and have no problem getting 10,000 - 12,000 nm which is what they did in real life - I don't care what Wikipedia says. The 'silent service' is very protective of its true potential during WW II to this day - more so now I think.

I followed many patrol reports and they had to have this ability to arrive at specific locations in time frames given.

The biggest problem with the sim tweak is if the player sails at 10 kts, they can travel too far - it would be a cheat.

On the draft issue, my understanding is RFB felt the boat sat too high in the water. What is your understanding of their thinking?

merc4ulfate

02-14-14, 02:19 PM

While adequate the slower turning radius was improved after the war with the Top Stern rudder.

Here is some information that I hope helps you out.

http://www.perch-base.org/index_files/Historic_Sub_Classes.pdf

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

This one will open a PDF file that deals with certain aspects of submarine physics centered around torpedo avoidance of the submarine. Some information may be helpful in your search.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA382255&ei=jGb-UtD2Boi2yAHsjoGQDw&usg=AFQjCNFMhi3aHVHOyPlbfRJ8ec4Ev_m4Dg&sig2=ZAwMTb0Qj1tCPOx9PriImg

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

Here is a list of manuals and documentation:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/index.htm#ss

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

Submarine manual 1942:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/s-boat/index.htm

Hitman

02-14-14, 05:36 PM

You were/are at kickinbak right?

If the nick still matches, you are talking to no other than Frank Kulick :cool:

aanker

02-14-14, 07:21 PM

If the nick still matches, you are talking to no other than Frank Kulick :cool:
I am honored - thanks for the TS info : )

I like to use his method of attack with no TDC.

Happy Hunting!

TorpX

02-14-14, 08:46 PM

My ship pack contains ships ranging from small armed fishing boat to New Mexico battleship, so if you need help testing those physics, I can help. No freighters or tankers at the moment, but I can whip something up if needed:).

Here is the thread

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188786

Cdp44

I'm glad you posted that. It will help me a great deal to be able to "drive" some surface ships around, and see how they behave.

I wasn't able to get them to work with RFB, so I will have to either figure out how to adapt them, or use GFO for some tests.

About the freighters; I would like to test a few to make sure they do what they are supposed to. Is it difficult to make ships playable? The only thing I really need, is for them to accelerate to max. speed, and check their turning. I'm thinking I need to try some of widely different sizes/speeds. If they respond ok, the the ones in between should be ok.

[/INDENT][/INDENT]You were/are at kickinbak right? Ducimus had a divine revelation - not a revolution - he liked to start those .... lol - just kidding... a divine inspiration and thought about battery life and fuel in a different light. The end result was to give a Propulsion expert special abilities in addition to changing the values in the sims.

Yeah, I remember Duci posting about his stratagem. I think this may be the only way to get decent battery performance. When I'm done with the turning/moving stuff, I'll try to figure out how to get a special ability crewman in every boat. I've never done anything with that part of the game. (I still wished I knew why I can't just put in the right number into the file. :06:)

On the draft issue, my understanding is RFB felt the boat sat too high in the water. What is your understanding of their thinking?

I seem to remember reading somewhere, that the widely varying figures for draft, displacement, and speed were due to modifications made to the boats over the years, but I can't remember where I read that. In any case, I don't think the difference would change much of what I'm working on. I've noticed that sometimes when I surface the boat will come up a foot higher than "normal" and get an extra knot, but if I mod the files to have it 3 feet higher, it doesn't change the speed. Whatever values we put in will be "normal".

While adequate the slower turning radius was improved after the war with the Top Stern rudder.

Here is some information that I hope helps you out.

http://www.perch-base.org/index_files/Historic_Sub_Classes.pdf

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

This one will open a PDF file that deals with certain aspects of submarine physics centered around torpedo avoidance of the submarine. Some information may be helpful in your search.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA382255&ei=jGb-UtD2Boi2yAHsjoGQDw&usg=AFQjCNFMhi3aHVHOyPlbfRJ8ec4Ev_m4Dg&sig2=ZAwMTb0Qj1tCPOx9PriImg

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

Here is a list of manuals and documentation:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/index.htm#ss

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

Submarine manual 1942:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/s-boat/index.htm

Ah yes, those help. I like the '42 S-boat manual, good stuff.

Did some more experimentation today. I think I can start seriously nailing some things down soon. I have the S-18 pretty much like I want it. The diving and turning are much better. I think I can probably use the same numbers for the S-42. I should get easier as I progress, since I know more about these arcane details now.

TorpX

02-15-14, 09:14 PM

Cdp44,

I installed and used GFO and your ship pack to test a few examples so I would have an idea how bigger/faster ships will work, and to assure myself that what works for the subs will also work on the ships. I'm pretty happy with the results. I didn't really do anything with the turning yet, but checked the acceleration of the Northampton CA, Fletcher DD, and fishing boat (I wanted a slow one for contrast). Your ships have provided valuable data already. :up:

Some of what I've discovered so far:

The mass/displacement of the ships doesn't really seem to change their behavior; rather it is the maximum speed and h.p./ mass ratio that I have to take into account.

Here is a little taste of what I experimented with:

fishing boat _______ 92 tons, max. speed 9.5 kts.
I gave it a 100 hp engine

stock behavior
starting from 0 kt.
to reach 5 kts. __________ 08"
to reach 9 kts. ___________25"

altered behavior
starting from 0 kt.
to reach 5 kts. __________ 45"
to reach 9 kts. ___________ 1'37"

Fletcher DD ______ 1500 tons, max. speed 38 kts., 60,000 h.p.
It must be one of the zippiest ships; if it moved any faster, it would fly. :)

stock behavior
starting from 0 kt.
to reach 10 kts. __________ 04"
to reach 20 kts. ___________07"
to reach 30 kts. ___________12"

altered behavior
starting from 0 kt.
to reach 10 kts. __________ 16"
to reach 20 kts. ___________ 35"
to reach 30 kts. ___________ 1'11"

[tops out at 33 kts., increased to 38 kts. at battle stations]

If I dampen the acceleration more than this, it doesn't reach it's "maximum speed", so there is a limit as to what can be accomplished here. Still, it is much better than stock.

I will probably go back to the subs now and finish those before returning to the ships. When I've gotten the work with those done, I will post a tutorial here, so anyone who has custom ships, can easily configure them to work well along these guidelines.

So, what do you all think?

John Channing

02-16-14, 11:34 AM

It sounds fantastic and long overdue.

One of the things that has always frustrated me is that all of the literature I have ever seen on the subject is clear on the fact that a Fleet Submarine could out-turn a Destroyer.

Well, sure as hell not in Silent Hunter 4.

Plus when a group of Hunter-Killers leaves one behind before returning to the convoy he always seems to sit in one place just listening. The temptation is to sneak up to PD and give him one broadsides. However the ability to accellerate from 0 to 30 in 12 seconds makes it impossible.

Carry on, good sir.

aanker

02-16-14, 11:40 AM

So, what do you all think?

I like, and am following closely.

The S-Boats may be a different kettle of fish, this should be interesting...

HertogJan

02-16-14, 02:46 PM

Yup same here :up:

Madox58

02-16-14, 05:08 PM

Will be interesting to see if there's a percentage change that could address all ships.

If so? A script could be written for 010 to adjust all units in the sea folder.

That would save you alot of work.

merc4ulfate

02-16-14, 06:20 PM

So a Fletcher goes 0-30 in 1'11" ??? 1 foot 11 inches???

What am I missing about your figures?

Are you trying to say 1:11?? 1 minute 11 seconds?

TorpX

02-16-14, 08:27 PM

Are you trying to say 1:11?? 1 minute 11 seconds?

Yes, it was easier to write it that way.

Will be interesting to see if there's a percentage change that could address all ships.

If so? A script could be written for 010 to adjust all units in the sea folder.

That would save you alot of work.

I don't really know enough to do this. Perhaps in the future, this could be done.
My goal is to have a good set of guidelines at the end of this project, so anyone who wants to add a new, or custom ship/sub, to the game, can read what I post and figure out the right values with minimal testing. I think this is achievable. I don't know if you can totally eliminate the trial and error part, though.

Right now, I still find the issues with diving and turning somewhat tricky. For example, it is not hard to make a boat dive faster, but it may not take a good angle, or might be sluggish, or go past the ordered depth. With turning, strange things can happen. In one test, the boat started a turn, then started skidding from one side to the other, without being able to continue the turn. I was trying to figure out what was wrong, and I noticed the rudder was at constant 40 deg. and depth control was lacking. Going into the control room I was surprised to find the boat rolling one side to the other. I thought, well, we certainly don't want that.

I'm hoping that the fleetboats will all be similar, and I won't have to do too much trial and error.

TorpX

02-20-14, 09:53 PM

I was playing around with the waves. That is, trying different values for the Sim.cfg file (in the Cfg folder). I can't see what the wave attenuation does. Does anyone know about this?

[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.2 ;[0,1]
Waves attenuation=0.75 ;>=0

I was thinking of trying to make the weather a little more difficult.

aanker

02-21-14, 12:13 PM

Plug this into Google:
site:subsim.com Waves amplitude sim.cfg sh4

..... also try this if the above is more results than you want:
site:subsim.com Waves amplitude sim.cfg sh4 Ducimus

I recall Ducimus breaking it down....... somewhere : )

TorpX

02-22-14, 07:49 PM

I found some of Ducimus posts, and it seemed he did quite a bit of experimentation with these and related files, but it is not clear that he came to any conclusions.

At one point he thought he was close to a breakthrough, but the thread petered out after that. I think I will follow his advice in being careful about adjusting those, and leave them be for now.

aanker

02-22-14, 09:30 PM

From 2007-ish:
This helped a lot in understanding the AI. I tried finding his post here, I know he posted this in the forum however no luck.

--- Wrong topic : )

TorpX

03-09-14, 11:00 PM

I decided to change my timetable on this mod, in order to read U.S. SUBMARINES THROUGH 1945, by Norman Friedman. I should have done this at the outset. It has some very worthwhile info, and will provide a more authoritative basis for any changes. Why rely on guesses and internet crumbs when there are hard numbers available?

Before I got into the book, I did some work on the battery issue. After a good deal of tedious experimenting, I graphed out the results of the actual underwater range vs. input range. The results suggest that there is a logarithmic relationship where at small values, an increase in input range produces a large increase in actual range, but that, as I continued to increase input range, the increase becomes less and less.

[I suppose the devs mixed up a variable or formula in the code there.]

input range...........................actual range achieved
5 mi. @ 2 kts.________________22 mi. @ 2 kts.
10 mi. @ 2 kts._______________32 mi. @ 2 kts.
15 mi. @ 2 kts._______________38 mi. @ 2 kts.
20 mi. @ 2 kts._______________42 mi. @ 2 kts.
25 mi. @ 2 kts._______________ 45 mi. @ 2 kts.
30 mi. @ 2 kts._______________ 47 mi. @ 2 kts.
35 mi. @ 2 kts._______________ 51 mi. @ 2 kts.
45 mi. @ 2 kts.______________ 54 mi. @ 2 kts.
60 mi. @ 2 kts._______________ 58 mi. @ 2 kts.
75 mi. @ 2 kts._______________ 61 mi. @ 2 kts.
100 mi. @ 2 kts.______________ 64 mi. @ 2 kts.
180 mi. @ 2 kts.______________ 67 mi. @ 2 kts.
250 mi. @ 2 kts.______________ 68 mi. @ 2 kts.

[I think these were done with a -50 'special ability' propulsion specialist; you probably can't get the same results.]

It isn't clear whether there is an upper limit to actual range, per se, or not. For our purposes, it doesn't matter. Simply dialing up the input won't make for acceptable battery performance, because the recharge time is proportional to the input value. At the 100 mi. @ 2 kts. value the recharge is 4:21, and at 250 mi. @ 2 kts. it increases to 10:53. Obtaining proper recharge times is just as important as having the ranges correct.

Using inputs specifying 4 kts., or 6 kts., or whatever, gives similar results. I found no evidence of any "magic combinations" that give better results. Using 48 mi. @ 4 kts. will give about the same mileage as 180 @ 2 kts., along with the recharge times. I couldn't find any benefit to be had here. The game evidently uses some formula to reduce the ranges specs we put in to a certain battery capacity, and it doesn't matter how we specify it.

From my results, I've concluded that manipulating the sim file alone cannot fix the battery shortcomings in the game. I tried hard to find a solution here, that doesn't require resorting to using the "special ability" functions, but it doesn't appear possible. I've already experimented with using a "propulsion specialist" type solution (a la Ducimus), and this is workable, but I haven't settled on specific numbers yet. I have to finish this book to see what there is about battery performance.

CapnScurvy

03-10-14, 11:49 AM

TorpX

03-10-14, 10:31 PM

TorpX, one thing you should be careful of is thinking Real Life numbers are going to get you real life results. ...
Real life measurements won't add up to anything accurate if the measuring tool is off.

Yes, I know what you're saying.

Some parts of the model are certainly broken, some parts seem to work ok, and with many others it's hard to tell.

As far as turning and diving, many of the critical values are "drag coefficients"; that is, they are dimensionless numbers. So it is hard to even make a guess as to what they should be without testing. Lots of trial and error would seem to be required here. Fortunately, Gato, Balao, and Tench classes are not all that different.

I think the hardest part of this is the diving behavior, because so many different factors affect it, in one way or another. I've improved it some. I'm hopeful that I can improve it further.

mobucks

03-13-14, 12:16 AM

Thankyou for taking the time to work on this. It always annoyed me seeing DDs drag race like a cigarette boat. The AI ships are what really need the work. I've read a few books about fleet boat actions and the way they handled in the mods I've played always seemed at least adequate, when considering dive times at least. No idea about acceleration or turning radius, if that is brought to realistic standards then :up: I'm all for it!

TorpX

03-14-14, 12:41 AM

Thankyou for taking the time to work on this.

You're welcome!

***

I thought I'd be done with the subs by this time, but the more I looked at the diving issue, the less happy I was with it.

I've been trying out various number schemes and testing them. I'll pause the game at intervals and record the time, boat angle, at certain depths to get a profile of the dive. Just timing the dive isn't sufficient. I've done this for a surface to PD dive, and for a PD to 150 ft. dive, as well as for the reverse, 150 ft. to PD change. I'm more concerned with the angles at this stage. [I'm focusing on the Gato class now.]

I want to get things so that the boat will take on what I consider a sensible angle, and hopefully, not overshoot the ordered depth. I've never served on a submarine, so I can only rely on what I've read, and whatever intuitive notions of the physics I have. My idea is that the boat should keep within an target angle that is dependent on the speed it has; say ~ 8 to 10 degrees for 4 kts., perhaps ~ 10 to 12 at 6 kts., or something along these lines. The problem is that the AI crew seems to push the dive planes hard, and push the boat angle as far as they can; they don't pull back on the aft plane angle until they get close to the ordered depth. This tends to require that they must ease the angle of the boat very abruptly as they approach the ordered depth. This doesn't seem very good to me. I can lower the plane drag coefficients, but while this slows the angles rate of change, it isn't clear that it really limits the maximum angle. It tends to increase until the crew finally reverses the aft plane angle, and this only happens when they get close to the ordered depth. I don't know if there is a good remedy for this.

Periodically, I've taken a step back, to make some simple experiments to learn if a particular variable is doing what I thought it was doing. This is tedious, but has allowed me to figure out things I would not know otherwise. For instance, the RFB (and stock) files have zero drag coefficients for the front and rear dive planes. I thought this meant that the planes imparted no force to the ends of the boat (the dive angle resulting from buoyancy/trimming factors). This turned out to be false, however. Even with drag coefficient of 0, the value of the prop factor, increases the angle.

Long story short; this stuff takes a long time to sort out.

Sniper297

03-14-14, 12:53 PM

TorpX

03-15-14, 02:42 AM

It's not that I can't get the sub to dive fast. I want the darn things to dive in a proper manner where the planes give the boat a reasonable angle. I don't know - maybe I'm being too fussy about this.

I could zero out the planes and make the boat go down like an elevator, but that isn't what I want. Ideally, a maximum down angle of say 1.5 to 2 degrees per knot of speed would be good. The AI planesmen have other ideas, though. They seem to want to drive the boat down at 30 deg., if they can. I've noted that the interiors of both the RFB fleets and TMO fleets have inclinometers calibrated up to 15 deg. This suggests that they rarely exceeded this angle. That certainly seems reasonable to me, but I may have to let the AI crew have their way. :doh:

Just to see what would happen, I doubled the plane drag numbers, and ordered a 400 ft. depth while going at 8 kts. The boat took on a very steep angle as it plunged down. I have no way to measure angles above 15, but it appeared to be ~40 deg. The crew reversed the rear plane to try to reduce the angle, but the boat seemed to just keep plunging (out of control). I expected it to go all the way to the bottom, but around 400 ft., it leveled out (blowing bow buoyancy tank - apparently this is automatic and quite effective), and only overshot the ordered depth a short distance. Going back to PD was the reverse; ~40 deg. up angle, rocketing past 64 ft. and the bow poking up out of the water before the AI crew got it back down again.

The way I see it, diving behavior involves 3 elements:
1. flooding ballast tanks (the main factor going from full surface to ~30 ft. or so)

2. using the planes to achieve a down/up angle (the main factor in changing depths when below the surface)

3. maintaining a sensible target angle and reducing it in such a way as to reach the ordered depth quickly

The first element is easily adjusted with the flood rate, and this seems straightforward without any nasty computer based surprises. The second can be manipulated with the plane drag coefficients, prop factors and UD drag coefficients, but is not so simple. The last element seems to be totally lacking. The AI crew is apt to either go past the ordered depth, and reverse the planes before the finally settling into the correct depth (sometimes they must do this twice), or level out too soon, so that going the final 5 or 10 feet takes a very long time. They're just not very good at this part. Unfortunately, I can't see any way to adjust this part of the game.

[I should note that I'm using a mission where the crew is "competent"; at least that's what I put into the editor. I hope "elite" crews would be better.]

As far as the battery issue is concerned, I've given up on the sim file, and intend to implement Duci's technique. I wasn't able to obtain performance near spec. in any other way.

CapnScurvy

03-15-14, 05:46 AM

The AI crew is apt to either go past the ordered depth, and reverse the planes before the finally settling into the correct depth (sometimes they must do this twice), or level out too soon, so that going the final 5 or 10 feet takes a very long time. They're just not very good at this part. Unfortunately, I can't see any way to adjust this part of the game.

[I should note that I'm using a mission where the crew is "competent"; at least that's what I put into the editor. I hope "elite" crews would be better.]

I think you may have found your answer.

The difference in crew capabilities can easily change the subs "reaction time" to your maneuver orders. I think if you were to stick with a particular sub .sim setting.....yet have identical missions with different crew competency settings, you may find the sub reacts quite differently. It could be you'll find the lowest crew competency setting is the base you need to start with.....figuring the rest will only get better.

aanker

03-15-14, 01:01 PM

I didn't mess with the dive planes at all, just doubled the mainBT flood speed and diveBT flood speed numbers so it don't take 2 minutes to get it underwater. Also changed rudder drag to 5 and prop factor to 20, gives about the same rate of turn you would get if it was actually possible to back the screw on the inside of the turn.

As far as range and recharge time, I suspect SKWAS either got the values backwards or there's another file affecting this, for a Salmon/Sargo on up the standard is about 50 miles range with a 2 hour recharge time. I changed the numbers to;

miles=1
knots=45

That gives me a range of 63 miles at 2 knots before the battery is down to 10%, with a 14 hour recharge time. The range and speed numbers seem to have a bigger effect on recharge time than anything else, and the results are all over the place. I never tried any supercrewmen, tests were all with default starting crews.
The SALMON/SARGO are different, I don't have time to open them up however here is my GATO:

Following Ducimus, I edited my GATO sim's (for example) to 15.19 knots @ 14138.4 nm.... mostly for superstition and also to give credit to him, it was his idea after all. Each class is different and the numbers are different.

Using those numbers, that's 15+/- knots and around 12,000 - 14,000 nm distance depending on conditions.

Also edited the CFG's to:

AllStop=0.00
AheadSlow=0.25
AheadOneThird=0.50
AheadStandard=0.75
AheadFull=0.90
AheadFlank=1.00

For me satisfaction enough, finally, SHCE distances and speeds, and closer to reality; what I've been reading in the Patrol Reports! No more putting around the Pacific at 10 knots. Furthermore, by editing the Special Abilities UPC to:

[SpecialAbility ]
ID=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
NameDisplayable=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name
Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description
AbilityType=BatteryConsume; FuelConsume <-- comment out FuelConsume
AbilityValue= -41; -5
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0.7
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0.7
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

- and placing a Propulsion Specialist ability crewman (edit him in) to the PropulsionRoom, submerged distances upwards of 95 nm at 2 knots are easy. Ducimus initially suggested -45 but IMO that gave more distance than what these fleet boats could manage in reality - unless there are figures that show they could do 105 - 110 nm submerged... Recharge times are from 4+ hours at all stop to 9 hours at standard speed (14 - 15+ knots) which is what the patrol reports read.

I did away with the speed boost the Engines-Expert - Propulsion Specialist gives as well as the fuel boost. Those shouldn't be available.

[SpecialAbility ]
ID=Ability-Engines-Expert
NameDisplayable=Ability-Engines-Expert-Name
Description=Ability-Engines-Expert-Description
AbilityType= DiveSpeed; SurfaceSpeed, SubmergedSpeed <-- comment out

Unsure atm what I did with DiveSpeed ability.... I read somewhere that boats couldn't go out on patrol unless they could dive in less than a minute. Wish I kept better notes.

Somewhere in my notes I have comparison charts & graphs similar to what CCIP was posting.

Regarding the diving issue - obviously 'crash dive' can only be used when there is no ASW nearby.

During ASW my 'solution' is to order 600' to dive as fast as possible at 2 - 3 kts, and then order my desired depth when within 50' +/- of where I want to be... like 400' - whatever. If they do know where I am, I can increase speed, and then go silent and turn - or not turn.

Also edited DiveSpeed ability however I don't recall the effect, don't have time to re-test, so I don't want to send you on a wild goose chase with that.

TorpX

03-15-14, 09:36 PM

I think you may have found your answer.

The difference in crew capabilities can easily change the subs "reaction time" to your maneuver orders. I think if you were to stick with a particular sub .sim setting.....yet have identical missions with different crew competency settings, you may find the sub reacts quite differently. It could be you'll find the lowest crew competency setting is the base you need to start with.....figuring the rest will only get better.

Yes, I expect you are right. I decided to use the middle level of crew ability, as it was too much work to make separate tests for each level.

I tested a set of numbers today, that I consider very good. I set aside my displeasure with the crews desire for steep dive angles, and let them have their way. They seem to prefer 30 degrees if they have space and speed enough to get it. My only alternative would be to nerf the planes to the point where they are nearly useless, and I don't want to do that. I'll have to test this with an elite crew and see how it goes. If anything, they might dive too fast.

***

- and placing a Propulsion Specialist ability crewman (edit him in) to the PropulsionRoom, submerged distances upwards of 95 nm at 2 knots are easy. Ducimus initially suggested -45 but IMO that gave more distance than what these fleet boats could manage in reality - unless there are figures that show they could do 105 - 110 nm submerged... Recharge times are from 4+ hours at all stop to 9 hours at standard speed (14 - 15+ knots) which is what the patrol reports read.

I tested this with - 40, I think. It seemed pretty good. I'm not too concerned with the exact range figure, though. My inclination is to give a little better than min. spec. It's not clear to me that the listed values are what they tested at, or just Gov. spec (the later, I think). In reality, we would lose battery capacity, as they go through recharge cycles, until we got new ones in the next refit.

The thing about the special ability number is that I have to pick one value that will work well for every class of boat.

mobucks

03-16-14, 09:34 AM

Regarding the diving issue - obviously 'crash dive' can only be used when there is no ASW nearby

Sorry to butt in but I need some clarification:

I thought crash dive was used against ASW? Do you mean ASW that has not detected you?

Because of flank speed being used or some other reason?

aanker

03-16-14, 12:51 PM

The thing about the special ability number is that I have to pick one value that will work well for every class of boat.
If the boats were grouped into three major classes... [S-Boat], [PORPOISE], and [SALMON/SARGO, TAMBOR, GAR, GATO, BALAO, & TENCH], the special ability crewmen would only need to be different in each of the three groups or not included at all.

I had had no problem beginning a new career when I was given a new command in a different class because that is how we did it. If I was transferred from a PORPOISE to a GATO by BUPERS,a new upc file would also begin and a different Special Ability crewman would be in the roster with his numbers.

However, I think most people prefer to keep the same crew for their entire career, although once a skipper is in the major class of fleetboat like the major class TAMBOR is in above, they could keep their crews for the remainder of the War....

Sorry for the convoluted reply, I think I may have even combined abilities for that crewman.

Sorry to butt in but I need some clarification:

I thought crash dive was used against ASW? Do you mean ASW that has not detected you?

Because of flank speed being used or some other reason?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, if you are not detected yet........... although if they're on to you, everything in the book can be used as you see fit, right?

Happy Hunting!

Sniper297

03-16-14, 01:31 PM

Dark and/or foggy I can usually see bow waves and prop spray long before I can see the ship itself, but I'm pretty sure the enemy AI visual isn't programmed to even notice spray. In real life however I imagine the procedure would probably be different if you were putting along at 5 knots charging batteries and saw a destroyer looming out of a fog bank in the distance, as opposed to a can or plane coming straight at you full tilt boogie.

Crash dive shift to battery, all ahead full, rig out bow planes and put them on hard dive, flood negative, safety, and bow buoyancy, then start opening the main ballast tank vents from forward to aft. The idea is to get the bow under with a steep down angle ASAP who cares how much spray is kicked up in the process since the jig is already up.

If you haven't been spotted on a dark night, a better procedure would be to All Stop, open all main ballast tank vents and flood down level with as little spray as possible, then flood the internal tanks (which are vented inboard, no geysers or bubbles). Again in game it doesn't matter since the enemy AI visual is programmed to see by size and distance, near as I can tell it takes no notice of a sudden increase in speed, bow waves, ballast tank geysers, or even blowing a spout like a whale.

TorpX

03-16-14, 09:58 PM

If the boats were grouped into three major classes... [S-Boat], [PORPOISE], and [SALMON/SARGO, TAMBOR, GAR, GATO, BALAO, & TENCH], the special ability crewmen would only need to be different in each of the three groups or not included at all.

I had had no problem beginning a new career when I was given a new command in a different class because that is how we did it. If I was transferred from a PORPOISE to a GATO by BUPERS,a new upc file would also begin and a different Special Ability crewman would be in the roster with his numbers.

My understanding of the "special ability" files and structure doesn't go that far. AFAIK we must set the ability level to one number; meaning every prop. specialist is the same. If you know how to make each one different, that would be great.

I was able to take a "propulsion specialist", and put him in the boat, and set the ability level to what I liked (I just deleted the fuel consume aspect). I was not able to change the tooltip, icon, or do anything else.

If I could figure out how, I would like to have a "battery specialist" to bring the battery capacity into line, and have a separate "ballast fuel tank specialist", that would provide longer range to simulate the use of fuel ballast tanks.

***

I tested my Gato number scheme with an "elite" crew in diving. Oddly enough, it worked the same. Possibly this is because when we start a mission, the crews are as fresh as daisies. I would imagine that in career mode, it might be different.

In any case, I consider the numbers to be very good. Starting from full surface, 16 ft., at 10 kts., The boat gets down to 63 ft. in 54 sec. (PD is 64 ft. I allow the crew +/- 1 ft., as it is very difficult for them to move those last few feet), if you ring up full speed as you dive. The faster you go, the faster you descend (or ascend).

I consider these values to be good enough to use as a template for other classes.

aanker

03-17-14, 11:56 AM

I'm unsure what is hard coded... typically the ID - I think.

So, I was thinking that any normal (green) ability could have the Propulsion Specialist powers in a different boat class and be edited in to that UPC Career crew file. Let's test your dive time and battery while we're at it:

----------------------------- in one boat:
[SpecialAbility (number)]
ID=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
NameDisplayable=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name
Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description
AbilityType=DiveSpeed, BatteryConsume
AbilityValue= 65, -41
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

----------------------------- in another boat:
[SpecialAbility (number)]
ID=Ability-Engines-Expert
NameDisplayable=Ability-Engines-Expert-Name
Description=Ability-Engines-Expert-Description
AbilityType=DiveSpeed, BatteryConsume
AbilityValue= 65, -41
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

and as a real test:

----------------------------- in another boat:
[SpecialAbility (number)]
ID=Ability-Theoretician
NameDisplayable=Ability-Theoretician-Name
Description=Ability-Theoretician-Description
AbilityType=DiveSpeed, BatteryConsume
AbilityValue= 65, -41
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

I learned that the ability order on the Ability Bar Tabs is impossible (for me) to change. (unless I missed it)... Too many people were tight-lipped about how to do some things, or maybe they just didn't know, so I couldn't get a straightforward answer, although others had hearts of gold... I'm for sharing.

The ability Description can be edited later. I want to see if this concept works in Career mode, and having the Theoretician do these jobs in the Engine Room... is the 'true test' : )

................ done!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edit:

OK - feel free to give them whatever abilities and numbers you like.

For example a Theoretician with the abilities af a Propulsion-Specialist and Diving Officer (with the values above) performs just like a Propulsion-Specialist in Career mode.

TorpX

03-18-14, 12:12 AM

aanker

03-18-14, 12:30 PM

I don't understand why this part of the files is structured the way it is:
[SpecialAbility (number)]
ID=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
NameDisplayable=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name
Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description
AbilityType=DiveSpeed, BatteryConsume
AbilityValue= 65, -41
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

These three lines seem to have redundant info, but I guess there is a reason for this?

I'll probably try that tomorrow. I worked on the Gato's turning today. I think it is what it should be now.

I succeeded in getting any green Ability to control the dive speed and battery. One could be for the S-class, another for the PORPOISE, and the 3rd for the Fleet-Boats, the three major classes would have different values.

As far as the three lines, here's what I think - not 100%

The ID identity is used by the AI - the un-editable SH4.exe and any related files only accessible if you can code using 1's and 0's.... lol.

The order of these was impossible for me to change (or I wasn't doing it right).

Then I jumped on the purist bandwagon of not wanting any Abilities, because they are too gamey.

These next two:
NameDisplayable=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name
Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description

I think NameDisplayable is the name displayed on the Crew page & Tabs.

Description is probably the hover tooltip.....

I wonder if these two lines could remain the same. Then the ID 'Theoretician' and ID 'Engines-Expert' with the Propulsion & Diving Specialist skills would have a Propulsion Specialist icon in each major boat class, just different values, and the tool-tip would read the same for all three. To the user it would look like the same ability in every class.

NameDisplayable=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name <---- remain the same.

These lines below could remain the same with different values for each boat class, or major class, like I thought you wanted.

Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description <---- remain the same.
AbilityType=DiveSpeed, BatteryConsume
AbilityValue= 65, -41 . . . . . . . . . . <---- values would change.
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

The big problem is most people, the 'casual gamers' don't want to start a new career for each class - or major class; [S-Boat], [PORPOISE], and [Fleet Boats]

They could get around that by hand editing their Active Player Unit UPC file in their Saved Game folder using Search and Replace with a text editor, and change the S-Boat Specialist and their specific values to a GATO Specialist with his values. This is beyond what casual gamers want to or know how to do though.

TorpX

03-18-14, 11:18 PM

I took another shot at this special ability thing, and had some success. However, there are still a few problems.

I was able to put in a separate "battery specialist", and "fuel specialist", but the game hesitates when it is almost done loading the mission. I have to hit the Esc key a couple times to start the mission. My guess is that the game is going around in circles looking for a proper icon or tooltip string. Once I start the mission, they seem ok, apart from the lack of proper icons in the display:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/ISP%20mod/Fuelmodscreenshot_zpsefaacb64.png

I put in 3 special crew here. The top one is more or less copied from G7eT2's Battery Boost for RFB mod. It seems to hook into whatever existing icon and description the game uses (I don't know how or where, though). The middle one is the battery specialist, and the lower one, the fuel specialist. I was able to add the description through the text in the upc file. The icons are not mine; the game picked these by default, and may be why the mission doesn't want to load. I don't know why the color is different.

;................................................. ..........added fuel ability
[SpecialAbility 14]
ID=Ability-Fuel-Specialist
NameDisplayable=Fuel-Specialist
Description=This man understands the operation of the FBT's
AbilityType=FuelConsume
AbilityValue= -50
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0.7
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0.4
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

The big problem is most people, the 'casual gamers' don't want to start a new career for each class - or major class; [S-Boat], [PORPOISE], and [Fleet Boats]

They could get around that by hand editing their Active Player Unit UPC file in their Saved Game folder using Search and Replace with a text editor, and change the S-Boat Specialist and their specific values to a GATO Specialist with his values. This is beyond what casual gamers want to or know how to do though.

Yes, I agree requiring hand editing of game files is something to avoid, if possible.

I would rather not use the other existing types of specialists; people would likely object if they could no longer rely upon them. I think one value for battery consume would likely suffice for most classes, except the S-class. For the S-class, I could put two in (kind of odd, but it works). I haven't tested any of this in career mode, but it should work the same, shouldn't it?

aanker

03-19-14, 03:08 PM

I see the problem, let me do some digging and find the files.

The yellow icons are active abilities and must be activated, the ability only lasts for a specific period of time.

The green icons are Passive Abilities and are always in use.

These three lines should not change, they point to UPC & TSR files that give the description - tool tip.

ID=Ability-Fuel-Specialist <--- must be one in the Special Ability upc file
NameDisplayable=Fuel-Specialist <----------------- is in UPCLocalization.tsr file
Description=This man understands the operation of the FBT's <---- is in UPCLocalization.tsr file

With the edits to the sim's, a fuel specialist isn't needed, I was using the Propulsion Specialist for the battery, also edited the dive speed in.

So sorry for the confusion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For this example I am using a GATO class boat, and a PROPULSION SPECIALIST, on modified Stock 1.5 files.
- although from testing yesterday it appears that any Green (Passive) Ability can be used. NOT a Yellow (Active) Ability, the Yellow Ability needs to be activated and 'times out'.

You will notice that these files are all tied together and some sections can't and shouldn't change, which explains why the game didn't start right up or want to use the Ability in your edit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In this edit the goal is to sail to the patrol area & patrol at two-engine speed, around 15 +/- knots on the surface, and be able to go approx 90+ nm submerged at 2+ knots. Recharge time should be around 6 - 8 hours at two-engine (Standard) speed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For the GATO, files that need to be edited:
SpecialAbilities.upc
UPCLocalization.tsr
CrewMembers.upc
Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.upc
Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.sim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SpecialAbilities.upc in:
Data\UPCData\UPCCrewData\

This file contains all of the Special Abilities, both Passive Abilities and Active Abilities.

[SpecialAbility 7]
ID=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
NameDisplayable=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name <---- tied
Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description <--- tied
AbilityType=BatteryConsume
AbilityValue= -43
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0.7
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0.7
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPCLocalization.tsr in:
Data\UPCData\UPCLocalization\

Find the CREW ABILITIES section which is what is pointed to (the tool tip) by the SpecialAbilities.upc Description section:
Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description

From Stock 1.5:

Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name=PROPULSION SPECIALIST
Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description=Required compartment: ENGINES ROOM|If your submarine as a machine is limited, the ingenuity of your men is not. The Propulsion Specialist can stretch your submarine autonomy to greater limits. He is able to adjust the submarine parameters to increase its surface and under water range also reducing excessively long recharge times.

Edit to whatever you like after the " Description= ":
(Note that I had the THEORETICIAN in the ENGINES ROOM compartment yesterday)
The vertical line ---> | <--- is not seen, it is newline.

Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name=PROPULSION SPECIALIST
Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description=Required compartment: ENGINES ROOM|***Begin your tool tip edit here***. The Propulsion Specialist is able to adjust the submarine parameters to increase its under water range and reduce excessively long recharge times.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To automate getting the crewman with the Special Ability on your roster he is edited into:
CrewMembers.upc in:
Data\UPCData\UPCCrewData\

CrewMember 51 here was added after CrewMember 50. Other files may have a different final crew member to add to:

[CrewMember 51]
ID= Crew-CO-Rank-1-Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
NameDisplayable= NULL
CrewMemberNameIDLinks= NormalUSNames,CommonUSNames
DateOfBirth= NULL
Head= NULL
Voice= NULL
Tatoo= NULL
Rank= CPO
CurrentExperience= 0
Qualifications= QualCommand7
SpecialAbilities= Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
IntelligenceCoef= 0.50
LeadershipCoef= 0.95
MechanicalCoef= 0.70
ElectricsCoef= 0.70
GunsCoef= 0.30
WatchmanCoef= 0.50
Medals=
Patrols=0
Morale= Normal
FatigueCoef=0
Hitpoints= 500.0
RenownCost= 3000
Notes= ; should be editable by the player
;DamageDescription1=DamageType,MinDamage, MaxDamage, ChanceFactor, Message, DamageDestination, EfficiencyReduction, medic_skill,recovery_time_in_hours
DamageDescription1= NULL, 0, 0.2, 1, Minor Wound, NULL, 0.2, 0.3, 48
DamageDescription2= NULL, 0, 0.2, 1, It's just a scratch, NULL, 0.05, 0.1, 4
DamageDescription3= NULL, 0.2, 0.5, 1, Broken Arm, HumanDamageArmwound, 0.6, 0.5, 96
DamageDescription4= NULL, 0.4, 0.8, 0.1, Liver wound, HumanDamageArmwound, 1, 0.7, 240
DamageDescription5= NULL, 0.6, 1, 1, Sucking chest wound, HumanDamageLegWound, 1, 0.8, 240
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- and the UPC files in the Submarines folder, in this example, GATO: NSS_Gato.upc in:
Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\

[UserPlayerUnit 1.Compartment 2.CrewMemberSlot 3]
ID=CrewMemberSlot_EngineW3L
NameDisplayable= Engine Rooms 3rd Section Leader
Type= Leader
WatchIndex= 3
IDLinkCrewMember= Crew-CO-Rank-1-Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
WatchCrewMemberSlot3D= NULL
BattleStationsCrewMemberSlot3D= NULL
WatchAccessoriesForAdding3DObjects= NULL
WatchAccessoriesForSubtracting3DObjects= NULL
BattleAccessoriesForAdding3DObjects= NULL
BattleAccessoriesForSubtracting3DObjects= NULL
- Edit the UPC files for each class in Data\Submarine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also in this folder (Data\Submarine) for every boat are the SIM's. Edit all of the SIM's for each class.
For example, NSS_Gato.sim in:
Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\

Learning from Master Ducimus - Disclaimer - he does not endorse me or my feeble attempt to get this right:

NSS_Gato.sim
- open NSS_Gato.sim
- find:
- - - - - - - - - -
unit_Submarine
_ _ unit_Submarine
_ _ _ _ Ranges
_ _ _ _ _ _ Surfaced
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ miles = 14138.4 <--- changed
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ knots = 15.19 <----- Eureka revelation
_ _ _ _ _ _ Submerged
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ miles = 20.0 <------ + affects recharge times *1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ knots = 4.0 <------- +/- affects recharge times *1

- - - - - - - - - -
*1 Changing - increasing these values (miles) increased the recharge times to days, which is why the Propulsion Specialist with Battery Abilities is needed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- also edit all of the CFG's for each class.
For example, NSS_Gato.cfg in:
Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\

[EngineProperties]
AllStop=0.00
AheadSlow=0.25 <--- submerged Silent, approx 2+ knots
AheadOneThird=0.50
AheadStandard=0.75 <------ now "Two Engine Speed" is approx 15 knots, not 10 knots.
AheadFull=0.90
AheadFlank=1.00
BackSlow=-0.26
BackStandard=-0.40
BackFull=-0.53
BackEmergency=-0.66
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Just composing this took some time - lol, I have tried to get this right however it has been years, so forgive me if there is a mistake - I don't think I forgot to add anything..... I hope, I hope...

TorpX

03-19-14, 09:07 PM

For the GATO, files that need to be edited:
SpecialAbilities.upc
UPCLocalization.tsr
CrewMembers.upc
Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.upc
Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.sim

I haven't touched the tsr file. That explains the difficulty.

I'm not sure I really explained what I wanted to do. My intention is to have 2 special abilities instead of one "propulsion specialist".

So there would be:

1. a "Fuel Ballast specialist" that would increase surface range. He would not be present at start. You would have to use renown to buy him. He essentially represents the FBT conversion, like having a radar upgrade, or new deck gun.

2. a "Battery specialist" that would increase submerged range. He fixes the battery issue. He would be in the crew at start, without cost.

I can't see just using the large max. ranges for all the boats at the start, because not all boats had the capability, even late in the war. The who and when of the FBT range issue is kind of muddy. I doubt we can find any hard and fast rules as to the which and when of this.

I did some more tinkering with the upc files, and was able to fix the hesitation at loading.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/ISP%20mod/SH4Img2014-03-19_173552_880_zps23786338.png

I appropriated the "theoretician" ability, so the game has a green icon to use. Seems to work ok.

I will study your post here, and see if I can polish this some. The important thing is that it will fix the batteries, and that the mod will load without hanging or crashing.

****

I still haven't entirely given up on increasing weather/wave effects. I looked into TMO's cfg file to see what Duci used for the waves amplitude and attenuation. He used the same values as RFB and stock. It might be good to increase these a little. As things are now, a boat can cut through the worst waves with little loss of speed. Clearly, this is not very realistic.

aanker

03-20-14, 11:14 AM

The edit to the SIM's for each boat class will give you your differing ranges for each boat class, both running on the Surface range, as well as Submerged ranges.

The Diving ability "DiveSpeed", can also be added to a Special Ability as shown here:

[SpecialAbility 7]
ID=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist
NameDisplayable=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Name
Description=Ability-Propulsion-Specialist-Description
AbilityType=DiveSpeed, BatteryConsume
AbilityValue= 65, -41
AbylityActsIn= PropulsionRoom
SkillRequiredLeadership= 0
SkillRequiredMechanical= 0
SkillRequiredElectrics= 0
SkillRequiredGuns= 0
SkillRequiredWatchman= 0

Both Abilities are used in the 'PropulsionRoom'.

I am interested in your maneuvering solutions - fix, imo they needed attention. Happy you took that project on.

mobucks

03-20-14, 12:28 PM

I still haven't entirely given up on increasing weather/wave effects. I looked into TMO's cfg file to see what Duci used for the waves amplitude and attenuation. He used the same values as RFB and stock. It might be good to increase these a little. As things are now, a boat can cut through the worst waves with little loss of speed. Clearly, this is not very realistic.

Have you sailed the Traveller's Mod 2.6? His waves are gigantic and in the worst weather I've seen the speed vary up to -5 (maybe even more) kts from the ordered speed. Don't quote me but I think ordered speed is never even reached in these waves. It states in his patch log that you need to be careful of wasting a lot of fuel in very heavy seas.

TorpX

03-20-14, 08:24 PM

The edit to the SIM's for each boat class will give you your differing ranges for each boat class, both running on the Surface range, as well as Submerged ranges.

Yes, I realize that, but the sim file doesn't allow me to change the range by year. For example, I don't think most (or maybe any) fleetboats had FBT's before 1943, and some didn't have it in 1944. The prop specialist allows you to get this ability after you've gone on some patrols. If I could put it into an upgrade pack, I would do that, but AFAIK, that's impossible.

I redid the tsr, upc files related to the propulsion and battery specialists so they are in a more game-friendly form. Still have to use the theoretician icon.

I also looked at this part of the tsr file:
;UPCCrewData\SpecialGlobalAbilities.upc
Fanatical Leader=Fanatical Leader
Unbreakable Leader=Unbreakable Leader
;UPCCrewData\SpecialLocalAbilities.upc
Torpedo Crew Leader=Torpedo Crew Leader
Torpedo Detonators Specialist=Torpedo Detonators Specialist
Torpedo Engine Specialist=Torpedo Engine Specialist
Torpedo Warhead Specialist=Torpedo Warhead Specialist
Surface Propulsion Specialist=Surface Propulsion Specialist
Underwater Propulsion Specialist=Underwater Propulsion Specialist
Propulsion Specialist=Propulsion Specialist

I tried using those terms, but I couldn't get them to work. Perhaps they are leftover from sh3.

I am interested in your maneuvering solutions - fix, imo they needed attention. Happy you took that project on.

Tried something else today for this (rough seas effects), but no success.

About the dive speed ability; I'll take a look at it. I don't think it is really needed, as far as having it in a beginning crew. The dive speed (on the Gato) is pretty fast, much better than before. If you are cruising at 10 kt. and put on speed as you dive, you can get to 63 ft. in under a minute. I consider this pretty realistic.

Have you sailed the Traveller's Mod 2.6? His waves are gigantic and in the worst weather I've seen the speed vary up to -5 (maybe even more) kts from the ordered speed.

I didn't know Traveller worked on this issue. I'll definitely have to look at that. Thanks for the tip.

aanker

03-21-14, 12:16 PM

I also looked at this part of the tsr file: ;UPCCrewData\SpecialGlobalAbilities.upc
Fanatical Leader=Fanatical Leader
Unbreakable Leader=Unbreakable Leader
;UPCCrewData\SpecialLocalAbilities.upc
Torpedo Crew Leader=Torpedo Crew Leader
Torpedo Detonators Specialist=Torpedo Detonators Specialist
Torpedo Engine Specialist=Torpedo Engine Specialist
Torpedo Warhead Specialist=Torpedo Warhead Specialist
Surface Propulsion Specialist=Surface Propulsion Specialist
Underwater Propulsion Specialist=Underwater Propulsion Specialist
Propulsion Specialist=Propulsion Specialist

I tried using those terms, but I couldn't get them to work. Perhaps they are leftover from sh3.

Interesting, wonder what they were planning - and what they did, and how far they got...

I never bought SH3. Did you? If so, is there a file in SH3 Data\UPCData\UPCCrewData\ named SpecialLocalAbilities.upc or SpecialGlobalAbilities.upc - or these files anywhere in the file structure of that game? Then, sadly, you're correct, as far as just being a SH3 relic...

Thinking 'out loud':
It wouldn't be hard to build that file using SpecialAbilities.upc as a template. Maybe those abilities, specifically the two abilities that you are interested in are in SH4 but are merely disabled/unused... THAT would be too easy, these things are never that nice...

Wonder what calls the icons for 'Abilities', I see the icons used in SH4. Possibly the menu1024.ini file calls them.

I recall seeing, "Fanatical" in relation to an ability, maybe an earlier patch? I don't remember. At one time I had, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4 backed up but deleted them thinking, I'll never need these... Typical.

About the dive speed ability; I'll take a look at it. I don't think it is really needed, as far as having it in a beginning crew. The dive speed (on the Gato) is pretty fast, much better than before. If you are cruising at 10 kt. and put on speed as you dive, you can get to 63 ft. in under a minute. I consider this pretty realistic.

I was trying to see if Abilities could be added/mixed. That ability is one the Engines-Expert has in Stock, and both need to be in the Engine Room. I don't like Abilities, however I do need one. If there is another way to reduce recharge times, I would like to see how they do it.

I read they couldn't go out on patrol until they could submerge in less than a minute. You seem to have that covered. Nice, no Diving Ability.

TorpX

03-22-14, 12:45 AM

Interesting, wonder what they were planning - and what they did, and how far they got...

I never bought SH3. Did you? If so, is there a file in SH3 Data\UPCData\UPCCrewData\ named SpecialLocalAbilities.upc or SpecialGlobalAbilities.upc - or these files anywhere in the file structure of that game? Then, sadly, you're correct, as far as just being a SH3 relic...

I have it, but it's not installed atm. I never looked under the hood. Maybe I'll install it and poke around.

I was trying to see if Abilities could be added/mixed. That ability is one the Engines-Expert has in Stock, and both need to be in the Engine Room. I don't like Abilities, however I do need one. If there is another way to reduce recharge times, I would like to see how they do it.

I read they couldn't go out on patrol until they could submerge in less than a minute. You seem to have that covered. Nice, no Diving Ability.

I don't have anything against the special abilities, so long as the numbers are reasonable. The shouldn't be too powerful, or too easy to get. They seem to be the only way to simulate later war techniques and skills coming into play.

Diving speed is a case in point. It's been written that diving to PD for fleetboats took ~45 sec. early war, and this was shaved to ~35 sec. later. This was done partly with structural changes to the boats themselves; taking out the Kingston valves, enlarging the openings, and increasing the number of limber holes. The game doesn't give us the structure for having an early war Gato, and a late war Gato. So, everything has to be wedged into one set of files - an average Gato. Having a crewman with a diving speed skill, at least allows some level of improvement, without having to hand edit files.

***

I dug into the scene.dat file, and was comparing it to what Traveller has in his mod. It's a little confusing. Too many different bits and pieces. I'd be tempted to plug in the values Traveller used, but without knowing something about what all these things do, it could be hazardous.

I tried to get the game to generate wind speeds above 15 m/sec. No dice. The game rudely ignores me. I guess no one has been able to do this.

The main thing I want to do with the waves, is to make them rougher on the boat. When we plough through large waves, little speed is lost. Sometimes the screws will come out of the water, and the speed goes down, but as far as I can tell, waves breaking over the bow don't absorb any energy. Hitting these waves should be slowing the boat, but it doesn't. I was hoping there was some value that could be adjusted, related to that. [I tried changing the rebound coefficient in the zon file, but it doesn't change the interaction with the waves.]

Does anybody have a good understanding of this file?

aanker

03-22-14, 11:10 AM

I was 'warned' about the scene.dat file, and it was suggested that it is too easy to mess this file up.

I wanted more distance with visuals. Having been on the Pacific deep sea fishing, I know I could see farther than what SH4 permits. That is either in scene.dat or hard-coded, I'm thinking mostly hard-coded.

Unfortunately, I know nah-sink.

Good plan you have then, to use Abilities to highlight/simulate early - late war GATO differences.

TorpX

03-29-14, 12:13 AM

I have been working on the scene.dat file, making changes to various values, and testing them. Mainly, I want to make the waves at the upper end of wind speed, larger, and more effective. Within limits, this is certainly possible.

Anyway, I have found a way to produce winds greater than 15 m/s, in missions. AFAIK, nobody has done this before. I don't know if it really has any practical value to the game, though. I have doubts as to whether the game would ever generate winds > 15 m/s, in career mode, or if this would mess up the weather in some way.

I will probably consider this a side project, and continue with a scene.dat scheme based on the usual top speed of 15 m/s, unless I can verify a version with a high top speed would work ok.

Admiral Halsey

03-29-14, 01:42 AM

You figured out a way to make the wind speed go faster then 15 m/s?

aanker

03-29-14, 11:00 AM

Maybe we can add Typhoon Cobra in Dec 1944 E Philippine sea - off Luzon, and place Admiral Halsey's Third fleet in the middle of it.

Nice breakthrough!

Happy Hunting!

Admiral Halsey

03-29-14, 11:05 AM

Maybe we can add Typhoon Cobra in Dec 1944 E Philippine sea - off Luzon, and place Admiral Halsey's Third fleet in the middle of it.

Nice breakthrough!

Happy Hunting!

That would be something to see.

Edit. 1000nth post? WOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sniper297

03-29-14, 12:43 PM

Dunno much about the Pacific since most of my flight hours and all my underway time was in the North Atlantic, but 15 meters per second works out to about 29 knots. It was a rare day in the Atlantic when we had LESS than that. The fixed wing AC of the day (F-4 Phantoms, F-8 Crusaders, A-6 Intruders, RA-5 Vigilantes) required a minimum of 30 knots down the flight deck for safe operation. Most of the time we just had to turn into the wind to launch or recover, very few occasions where we had to speed up to get 30 knots. 50 knots was probably closer to average with the ship doing only 10 knots, most times we actually slowed down for flight ops. YMMV, possibly the Pacific is "pacific" most of the time.

TorpX

03-29-14, 10:40 PM

You figured out a way to make the wind speed go faster then 15 m/s?
Yes, in a mission.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/ISP%20mod/SH4-highwinds_zps74bfa7d2.png
I noticed two things right off the bat. First the clouds were different. Instead of having heavy clouds with rain, like I originally put in the mission, I had fair weather clouds and rain (a concern). Second, the rain was almost horizontal; definitely different.

I don't know how the game generates weather, though. Does it use the location or season? Is it completely random? Would it ever produce winds above 15 m/s, in career mode?

For now, I don't want to get too caught up in the potential of higher winds. It could take some time to see if it has any real value.

PS - The reason why the waves don't look very high, is that they are only as high as we define them to be; meaning we can set waves to have certain characteristics at 15 m/s, or 30 m/s, or whatever. The waves pictured are what I had been using for 15 m/s.

Admiral Halsey

03-29-14, 10:45 PM

Yes, in a mission.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/ISP%20mod/SH4-highwinds_zps74bfa7d2.png

I noticed two things right off the bat. First the clouds were different. Instead of having heavy clouds with rain, like I originally put in the mission, I had fair weather clouds and rain (a concern). Second, the rain was almost horizontal; definitely different.

I don't know how the game generates weather, though. Does it use the location or season? Is it completely random? Would it ever produce winds above 15 m/s, in career mode?

For now, I don't want to get too caught up in the potential of higher winds. It could take some time to see if it has any real value.

I think it's somewhat dependent on season. I've noticed that in the fall months is when you're most likely to get a heavy rain.

TorpX

03-29-14, 10:50 PM

I think it's somewhat dependent on season. I've noticed that in the fall months is when you're most likely to get a heavy rain.

This would certainly make sense.

If someone knows of a particular file that has a bearing on this, it might be helpful.

Hitman

03-30-14, 05:25 AM

IIRC weather is dependant on season and latitude, there was a huge amount of research done on this for SH3 and SH4 still had a similar system with just some bugs fixed.

Regarding the visibility: In the first versions of SH4 you could easily modify the limit of visibility with a single parameter in the scene.dat, I remember having set 30 kms once. It caused some problems with the (not) curved horizon, though. For some reason, later patches changed that into a peculiar hardcoded system. Whereas in SH3 you can rescale the sky dome 3D for increased "world" around you, in SH4 scene.dat we find the old 8kms dome that is rescaled by the game engine to 20kms. Thus, increasing the dome size has no effect, the game will always rescale what it has inside to that distance.

Some other things to bear in mind: IIRC no units are "spawned" in a radius of 40 kms around your boat (If you stay that close to a habour where convoys or ships are programmed to spawn, they won't), nor is the 3D model effectively rendered if a unit is at outside that distance -meaning you would not see it anyway even if your world extends that far.

Please take all this with a grain of salt, I'm speaking out of my memory and might have forgotten lots of things. I'm just mentioning this so you can spare some research time and do yourself the tests to check wether what I said is valid or not.

Good luck :up:

TorpX

03-31-14, 12:47 AM

TorpX

05-03-14, 09:17 PM

I have been working on the ships for the next phase of ISP. Unfortunately, it looks like this will take more time than I thought.

I used cdp44's Ship Pack to test sim file values and get a few ships to accelerate and turn more realistically. I had hoped they would respond the same way in AI form. [The playable ships are built on altered submarine files, and obviously we need them to work in the game as ships.]

The immediate problem is that the Clemson DD sinks in heavy seas (15 m/s). I first tried adjusting the submerged depth in the sim file, but this did not help. Then I looked at the zon file and the 'CrashDepth'. It was at 300. This would seem to be more than enough. Nevertheless, I increased it to 1000, then 10000. Still the ship sinks.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/Misc/crashD_zpsea5efc08.png

BTW, I should mention that the ship does not slow down appreciably until it suffers damage. The waves may sink the ship, but they don't really add any drag. This seems rather perverse. :nope:

I presumed the figure is in meters, but maybe it is 'Martian meters, millimeters, or Tasmanian furlongs? The waves are not even close to 300 meters tall, so I really don't understand what's going on here.

After getting nowhere here, I zeroed out the crash speed, and this seemed to stop the sinking, but I am reluctant to do this.

Can anybody shed light on all this?

TorpX

06-05-14, 09:42 PM

I have been working intensely on the sea-keeping issue. I was able to craft reasonable sea-keeping qualities for the subs, so I thought I would be able to do the same for the ships. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case.

When I talk about 'sea-keeping', I mean ships being slowed significantly by large waves and heavy seas. In and of themselves, large waves do not appreciably slow ships in the game. This might surprise some, but it's true. I was able to give submarines realistic sea-keeping because they have a defined submerged speed and propulsion. This allows the game to calculate the drag effect of having the hull plunge deeper into the water. I'll elaborate on this point.

In SH4, there are two mechanisms whereby subs lose speed in heavy seas:

1. The boat pitches up and down. This in itself doesn't cause speed loss, but when the rear comes out of the water the screws will stop propelling the boat briefly.

2. The boat moves up and down, so the depth is going up and down. When the depth increases the game assesses extra drag on the hull. This is the same thing that occurs when you dive. It doesn't matter that you are not actually diving the boat; the drag starts as your depth increases.

The second mechanism produces the greater effect. However, this is absent with the surface ships. They have no defined submerged speed/propulsion, and there is no increased drag in heavy seas. The ships will lose a little, due to the screws coming out of the water, but this amounts to a lost of only about 0.2 to 0.4 kt. at 10 kt. This is hardly significant. At higher speeds it gets worse. The faster the ship moves through the waves, the less effect they have on it.

I tried using S3d to build a different version of a sim file and found a difference in what S3d produced from the in-game versions:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/ISP%20mod/shipsimfile1_zpse66ac7a8.png

The unit_Ship chunk was added by S3d and has 2 FR drag elements in the file that aren't in the game files. This was very exciting to me as it seemed to offer a solution to increasing the drag like I wanted to do. The FR stands for front-rear. Alas, it doesn't seem to actually do anything. After trying many values, big, small and in-between, I can't find any change in the results.

Perhaps someone can shed some light on this. Does anyone know if this quantity was used in SH3.

For now, I have put this aside, and gone back to working on things that I can fix.

TorpX

08-01-14, 01:55 AM

merc4ulfate

08-01-14, 05:08 PM

I have seen horizontal rain in real life in the Navy .... looked cool. The sea was totally calm during it too.

aanker

08-01-14, 07:47 PM

ISP work

I have finished with the ships and for the most part the subs are ok. I made an attempt to improve the diving characteristics, but I decided they are as good as I can make them already. Tweaking the various drag factors just caused problems.

I expect to release a version for RFB + RSRDC that will have all the subs and ships in one package. I doubt that I will build a separated RFB only version. I could, but I doubt there would be much demand for this. I think most who use RFB also use RSRDC.

Except me, I prefer the heavily researched and historically accurate PTC Cycles mod by Ed Howard that we used for the 15 cycles (3 months = 1 cycle) of each PTC Campaign, Dec 7th 1941 - Aug 1945, combined with Kim Rønhof's TBox (& Report Generator) TBox selects missions & issues appropriate patrol orders and much more.

Ed modified the cycles mod into a stand alone mod now called the "Guerrilla Submarines Spyron Mod" available at his website:
http://www.subsowespac.org/silent-hunter-4-mods.shtml

I wanted to include files for the Narwhal class, but found that the Narwhal just doesn't work right in RFB. RFB 2.0 has only an empty folder for the Narwhal, RSRDC has it's version of the Narwhal, but it doesn't work right. I presume it worked ok with an earlier version of RFB.

If someone knows how to straighten these issues out, I'll take a stab at fixing them, otherwise I'll release ISP 2.0 without any Narwhal support.
The Narwhal class disappeared into the ether for some reason, I suspect the hands-on move crew from on deck watch by hand when the boat dives and you don't want to expose the to danger, plus they man stations in the CT & CR. I could be wrong..... usually am..... lol

I can get crew into the empty slots of the control room and fwd torpedo room, but don't know how to do this for the deck watch. The 3 men in the Hogan's Alley did not appear there, but were in the roster, at left, and didn't show up on the boat until I moved them there. Worse yet, the control room and sonar stations are messed up; when you try to go there, you end up outside the boat. In short the Narwhal is unusable, as it is, and I have no idea how to fix this.

Thanks for the update.

I want to find some time to see if I can see what is up with the donation NARWHAL class & the mysterious empty folder in RFB when I finish this '15 cycle' campaign I'm currently playing.

Happy Hunting! - and thanks for ISP

TorpX

08-01-14, 11:45 PM

I have seen horizontal rain in real life in the Navy .... looked cool. The sea was totally calm during it too.

I hope this means you like the weather.

[/INDENT]Except me, I prefer the heavily researched and historically accurate PTC Cycles mod by Ed Howard that we used for the 15 cycles (3 months = 1 cycle) of each PTC Campaign, Dec 7th 1941 - Aug 1945, combined with Kim Rønhof's TBox (& Report Generator) TBox selects missions & issues appropriate patrol orders and much more.

So, you use RFB 2.0 without RSRDC? Does the PTC Cycles mod add extra ships, or just the RFB ships?

I thought at first, one mod would work for both RFB and RFB + RSRDC, but the later mod not only adds ships, but changes the air groups in the *.cfg files. I am working on a RFB + RSRDC version, and I don't think it will work right with RFB only.

The Narwhal class disappeared into the ether for some reason...

Yeah, I guess the Narwhal doesn't really get a lot of attention. I wanted to add it in, for completeness sake, but I won't hold up the whole mod trying to figure it out. Maybe I can add it at a later date.

aanker

08-02-14, 12:47 PM

So, you use RFB 2.0 without RSRDC? Does the PTC Cycles mod add extra ships, or just the RFB ships?

I thought at first, one mod would work for both RFB and RFB + RSRDC, but the later mod not only adds ships, but changes the air groups in the *.cfg files. I am working on a RFB + RSRDC version, and I don't think it will work right with RFB only.No extra (non stock) ships or aircraft are added and it wouldn't matter if they were, most members used TMO which adds ships, some tried to use RSRD, not sure how that went........ someone, maybe a couple used RFB, several used the Stock layers, Websters GFO mod, or a personal mod.

Kim added the names of most of TM's 'extra ships' (at least up to v1.9) to his Patrol Report Generator so it would recognize them.... a completely different Program though.

Extra (new) ships have no effect on the campaign. The Cycles mod, now the "Guerrilla Submarines Spyron Mod" happily issues Patrol Orders and sends messages assigning secondary Objectives as Primary Objectives are completed. All 'Special Missions' are missions actually conducted by US Submarines in WW II.
Yeah, I guess the Narwhal doesn't really get a lot of attention. I wanted to add it in, for completeness sake, but I won't hold up the whole mod trying to figure it out. Maybe I can add it at a later date.
Too bad about RFB & the empty NARWHAL class folder. Several missions in the "Guerrilla Submarines Spyron Mod" are those conducted by NARWHAL and its sisters. They can of course be easily conducted in any class boat in SH4.

NARWHAL was an underpowered pig to handle until new engines were added in a major overhaul in 1943. Those engines took up space available for torpedo reload storage, reducing that number/capability.

Sorry for rambling - partly OT here. : )

Happy Hunting!

merc4ulfate

08-02-14, 05:34 PM

aanker

08-02-14, 06:27 PM

"most members used TMO"

I do not find this to be true. From my reading and talking to others it seems Operation Monsun may have a third of the share. TMO, RFB, RSRD and other mods follow after in varying percentages.

There are many, but not most, who use RFB with RSRD so there is nothing from the added shipping in TMO in those.

I probably shouldn't have written in this Topic but wanted to say "Thank you" to TorpX and let him know that there are probably quite a few who like RFB that don't use RSRD.

Also sorry, I should have used a complete sentence:

Most members of the now defunct Silent Hunter I & IV online gaming group that focused on American WW II Submarine operations in the Pacific Theater called, "The Pacific Thunder Campaign" mostly used TMO, RFB, and Stock...... We didn't use 'German' U-Boats.

Happy Hunting!

merc4ulfate

08-02-14, 08:33 PM

By the way Toprx ... the rougher it got at sea the more I like it. I remember once standing between the poles of the bow jack staff and having them scream at me from the bridge to get off the bow.

I did ... and went straight to the forward look out which was one level higher than the bridge. At the bow I got the most up and down action and at forward look out you got the most port to starboard motion being higher up than the bridge. They heard me on the sound powered telephone and scrammed me off there as well.

The night we had the rain going sideways was eerie since the sea was completely calm. Other days had the sun shining bright with clear skies and the sea with 20 foot crest. You sea all kinds of weather out there but it was always fun..

TorpX

08-02-14, 11:50 PM

[/INDENT]No extra (non stock) ships or aircraft are added and it wouldn't matter if they were, most members used TMO which adds ships...

I'll probably put together a TMO friendly version down the road.

By the way Toprx ... the rougher it got at sea the more I like it.

I'm glad you like it. Having severe weather, that has an operational effect, was a major goal for me.

merc4ulfate

08-04-14, 05:30 PM

Please shoot off some fireworks when your done with the mod. I'd love to try the new version. After I got the documentation in my head about moving the specialist all my speed issues went away using ISP.

I'm looking forward to your new version.

TorpX

08-04-14, 09:50 PM

Please shoot off some fireworks when your done with the mod.

Oh, I will! I promise you.

I have a bit of good news to add. I loaded the donation Narwhal mod and figured out how to make it work with RFB. It worked fine with TMO, as is, but I wanted to give RFB users the option to be able to use it. (Also, the Narwhal was kind of interesting from a propulsion standpoint.) So, if you use RFB and have the New Narwhal K v1.8.5, you can have realistic physics with it.

I know how to fix the crew roster issues with the RSRDC Narwhal, but haven't the slightest idea why the stations are inoperable. So, I will go with what works.

It will take a little more time to get the Nar squared away, but I want to do it now, when all of this stuff is fresh in my mind.

The ships are done, and the subs are mostly done (still have to do final checks *raps knuckles on hard cellulose material*).

les green01

08-04-14, 10:00 PM

woot i'm glad you got the donation Narwhal to work :yeah:

TorpX

08-04-14, 11:36 PM

Me too.

It sort of bugged me to have the Narwhal class left out.

aanker

08-05-14, 11:18 AM

Me too.

Me three, thank you.

les green01

08-06-14, 11:34 AM

if not for the Narwhal or sugar boats wouldn't be a pacific war

TorpX

08-11-14, 11:13 PM

I've run into some trouble, so it will take some time.

I decided to redo the subs, as I was never really happy with the diving. It is proving to be slow going. For some reason, the Gato seems to be very different than the others, wanting to dive much faster than the Balao or Tambor. I can't see the reason for this; maybe something about the buoyancy is hard coded. Another problem, is that the Porpoise, Salmon, Sargo, and S-classes, have on inclinometers. Does anyone know how to fix this?

About the Narwhal, they seem to work ok (haven't gotten to the diving tweaks yet), but when I have the mod enabled, I noticed my other subs have no deck guns.

aanker

08-12-14, 11:29 AM

Another problem, is that the Porpoise, Salmon, Sargo, and S-classes, have on inclinometers. Does anyone know how to fix this?

The RFB's inclinometers in the CR Interiors at the planesman station in the Porpoise, Salmon, Sargo, and S-classes don't display properly? Is this what you are saying?

If so, with any luck, possibly in their respective Interior sims (?? I hope). Vickers03 is the true Interior expert however I don't mind looking at sims if that is the problem - and where the problem is.

I like using his interiors, even in RFB. Getting his interiors to display properly in RFB was a project - locating & mapping each gauge etc.

TorpX

08-14-14, 12:52 AM

The RFB's inclinometers in the CR Interiors at the planesman station in the Porpoise, Salmon, Sargo, and S-classes don't display properly? Is this what you are saying?

Yes. Here is what they look like:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/ISP%20mod/inclinometers_zps73a11a02.png

This is the way they look on the Porpoise, Salmon and Sargo classes. Of course the S-classes don't have any at all.

I guess it's not a fatal flaw, but it would be better if they worked right.

aanker

08-14-14, 12:10 PM

Oh my, this is quite a project, Interior *.dat work & the *.sims in S3D, plus texture mapping which by no means am I an expert at doing.

- Too bad Luke didn't finish those classes, however I believe he did do the BALAO, GATO, TAMBOR, and GAR classes, right(??) possibly because they are the most popular classes, and almost all use the same interior, - plus I think he was hired before he could 'finish' - maybe(??)... I don't know.

A possible solution:
A while back someone wanted the Pampanito Vickers03 interior to work in RFB, so I tried making this patch, I think I was successful - it worked for me:
Patch:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4254
for USS Pampanito BALAO interior by Vickers03:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=3752

Here are Vickers03 interiors for:
PORPOISE:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1469
SALMON/SARGO:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1539
S-CLASS:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1864

.......... I might be able to patch these to work in RFB, not sure, and I don't know if this is what you want.

With any luck it would be 'simple minded' patches similar to the Pampanito patch which is almost past the limit of my S3D ability.

I like Vickers interiors, what can I say :)

TorpX

08-14-14, 11:09 PM

I looked at some of the screenshots of the interiors Vickers did. They do look nice! I don't know what, if anything, I should do as far as my mod is concerned. I looked at a few of the interior files before, and quickly concluded it was beyond my ability to deal with.

I was able to substitute the Gato interior in the Narwhal and use it for testing. I don't know if it is fully functional, but I could use the inclinometers for dives, which was all I really needed.

I'll look at some of the Vickers03 mods, and try to see how they work. Maybe I'll learn something. :haha:

TorpX

08-22-14, 11:40 PM

This is to let everyone know, I am still hard at work on this.

I have gone back to using the RSRDC Narwhal. It didn't work for me before, but I think that was because I hadn't restarted the game when I tried it. Some files are loaded when the game starts, some when you run the mission. When I tried it again, it was ok, apart from some missing crew, which I fixed. This eliminates any potential problems about the Nar fitting seamlessly into the campaign.

There are a couple other things I would like to change: There are only 2 crew slots for each gun, eventhough, there are 6 in the *.upc file. I would like to have 6 slots for each gun, but don't know what the problem is. The other thing is that while the exterior gun models are large pieces, in game terms, they are 4 inch guns. I will try to fix that.

I've completely redone all the sub diving aspects. This has taken at least a few weeks, and was a lot of work. I'll have more to say about this later.

dom111

08-23-14, 05:27 PM

les green01

08-23-14, 08:39 PM

glad to hear what program to you use to open the upc files with

TorpX

08-23-14, 10:34 PM

This is a mod I've been waiting for long time, in order to solve the unreal acceleration of the ships in game, mainly warships. I've tried Webster's Ship Manuvering Fix, but with TMO+RSRDC it has a weird effect: once the target ship knows it's under attack, because it see the torpedo trails or whatever, it starts a zig zag course but slows down instead of speed up :o

I hope you can reach your objectives with this mod in the shortest time possible.

I can promise that the old problem of super-rapid acceleration will be completely fixed. The problem of slowing due to constant helming, that you mention isn't due to Webster's or any mod. It is a stock issue. Turning ships will always slow down some; it is just a question of how much. I hope it will be less noticeable, as the turning should be better.

I am working intensely on this, in order to get it done. It isn't helping anyone's game as long as it's locked up in my computer.

glad to hear what program to you use to open the upc files with

The *.upc files can be opened with notepad. I've been going through them, using WinMerge to compare the RFB versions to what I am using. There is a lot of this crew minutia that I don't really understand, so it is slow going. I had to backtrack, after I realized I had based my files on the RFB 2.0 version, instead of using the version in the later patch. What fun!

Anyway, I've finished with the ships, and apart from the Narwhal, the subs, too.

dom111

08-24-14, 01:44 PM

I can promise that the old problem of super-rapid acceleration will be completely fixed. The problem of slowing due to constant helming, that you mention isn't due to Webster's or any mod. It is a stock issue. Turning ships will always slow down some; it is just a question of how much. I hope it will be less noticeable, as the turning should be better.

I am working intensely on this, in order to get it done. It isn't helping anyone's game as long as it's locked up in my computer.

Ok, but it's a huge slow down, in some cases from 8 - 10 knots to 4 or less. Is this the stock behaviour?? I didn't know

TorpX

08-25-14, 01:06 AM

Ok, but it's a huge slow down, in some cases from 8 - 10 knots to 4 or less. Is this the stock behaviour?? I didn't know

Gawd! It didn't think it was that much.

TBH, I haven't done any testing of the issue; just turning generally. Armistead talked about this and wanted a fix, but, like I said, it is a stock issue. Are you sure this was entirely due to the helming and not to damage?

dom111

08-25-14, 03:23 AM

Yesterday in a patrol I fired three torps to a merchant doing 10 knots, two of them missed and the third were a dud, so I made no damage to the merchant and it started its zig zag course slowing down to 3 knots. So yes, it happens with no damage too. This is a weird behaviour I think, unless something are wrong with my installation.

TorpX

08-26-14, 12:07 AM

What mods are you using?

***
I made a quick mission to see what happens when I 'chase' a merchant. I used a Medium Modern Composite type with a max. speed of 17 kn. I set it at 15 kn. in the mission and chased after it with some desultory shelling.
with RFB 2.0:
15.5, 13.5, 10.5, 10.5, 11.0 kn.
with ISP:
12.0, 6.0, 7.0, 9.0, 9.0, 7.5 kn.
Now I hasten to say these figures don't prove much. I only did two tests and the 'target' ship speeds are simply estimated by distance covered in 3 minutes; that is from 0 to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 9, etc., etc. So, it does not take into account the curvature of the path, and in fact, the ship was not taking a straight course, but trying to steer away, while I was having to shoot with a rear mount gun, and not directly behind it.
This is not that easy to test in an objective fashion, so I think I will have to just compare turning speed and radius.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________
In any case, I don't think a full solution to this is possible without being able to recode the AI.

dom111

08-26-14, 06:04 AM

This is my current "mod soup":

01_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
02_TMO_25_small_patch
03_RSRDC_TMO_V502
04_RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1
05_LST_TMO_v2
06_TMO Smoke Mod
07_DC Water Disturbance v2 TMO2.5
08_Convoy Routes TMO+RSRD
09_Fixed Zero Bomb Load RSRDC
10_Fixed_CD_sonar_RSRDC
11_IJN_Radar_Fix_for_TMO2
12_TMO_Visuals_for_RSRDC
13_Easier AI for TMO 2.5 by Orpheus
14_Real_captain's_problems_mod_TM
15_Improved Stock Environment_v3_TMO&RFB
16_ISE Realistic Colors
17_ISE New clouds+Waves
18_Pacific Sound Mod
19_Patchman's Über Navigation Charts
20_Separate_interiors_TMO_25
21_SofuGan_RSRDC

I've to modified some of the mods to work together. Add to this list the Webster's Ship Manuvering Fix, wich I've currently disabled.

TorpX

08-30-14, 12:46 AM

Since I'm finishing up my work on ISP 2.0, I'll give some peeks inside the physics of the game.

The most complicated issue of the subs is the diving. In version 1.1 I tried to get fast diving, in line with published times I've read. In retrospect, I consider this a mistake. Dive angles were very large, and almost certainly, unrealistic. To correct the matter, I've completely redone the diving. Before, diving times took priority over diving angles, whereas now, diving angles take priority over times.

I doubt that any SH4 game can ever have fully realistic diving, and I think I've identified the main, or one of the main reasons for this.

Below is a diagram from a USN training manual showing how the dive planes are supposed to work:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/ISP%20mod/DivePlanes_zpsf999427b.png

The location of the planes is shown in Figure 18-2. (The dimensions shown are approximate, and apply only to the submarine described herein.) As indicated, the bow planes tend to change the vertical position of the submarine on an even keel. There is a certain rotational moment, but it is counteracted to a great extent by the longer after body which acts somewhat as a stabilizing rudder, resisting angular displacement.

The stern planes are located at a greater distance from the center of buoyancy and, although they are smaller in area, their effect is much greater than that of the bow planes. Their effectiveness is increased by their location directly aft of the propellers. This combination of a long moment arm and location in the propeller wash results in a rotational movement. Thus the bow planes are normally used to control the depth, and the stern planes the angle of the ship.

Alas, the game doesn't work this way. Fwd and aft planes seem to have about equal effect on the angle, the change in depth seems almost independent of the operation of the planes. This is especially true, when we remember that we can order a dive when motionless, and the sub will go up or down, and then hover when it reaches a certain depth. Speed and dive angle allow for rapid change in depth, but after the boat levels out (about 10 to 20 ft. before reaching ordered depth), rate of ascent/descent becomes very, very slow.

I've tried many different schemes in trying to fix, or work around the problem. In the game, all the boats have a gravity center, CG, in the middle of their length. I tried moving it forward substantially. This should permit the fwd planes to have more effect on the depth, and less on the angle. Unfortunately, setting the CG forward gives the boats an upward angle, and worse, causes them to reach an equilibrium at a shallower depth. Moving the CG backward gives the boat a downward trim angle, and causes it to go deeper. The angle is the opposite of what one would expect, and seems to indicate a mistake in the coding/model somewhere.

I tried setting the CG forward, and using a [I]slightly increased mass, to make to boat reach an equilibrium at the correct depth. This idea seemed promising, but when I tested it, the boat took even longer than normal to make the last 10 ft. of descent.

Next post, I'll explain what I finally settled on, for the diving scheme.

TorpX

08-30-14, 10:41 PM

Diving Qualities (continued):

Having decided to give diving angles a higher priority, I had to figure out how best to do this. I played around with lowering the drag coefficients of the planes, and/or increasing the submerged UD (up-down) drag co., but I found this to work in a rather poor manor. The boat would be more sluggish and pitch over at a slower rate, yet in a deep dive the angle would increase as it went. That isn't what I wanted; rather there should be a limiting dive angle X, at speed Y that the boat would maintain, even if you were diving to a very deep depth. Same with climbing from a deep depth.

To put it another way, the 'righting force' was too weak. Increasing the UD drag co. resisted the pitching rate, but did nothing to increase the righting force. After much experimentation, I found a way to do just that.

In ISP v1.1, I set the GC of the subs pretty high. I did this for two reasons: first to have the boats tossed around and roll more in stormy weather, and second, to make the boats level out more gradually in dives/climbs. The second aspect probably didn't have all that much effect, though. Experimenting with changes in GC showed that lowering it did indeed produce a stronger righting force, and allow the boat to reach an equilibrium at a lower dive angle. This was more stable diving behavior, and exactly what I wanted.

I found that a fwd. plane co. of about .012, prop factor 0, combined with a aft. plane co. of .006, prop fact. .06 worked well for most of the boats. I used slightly lower numbers for the S-class. Strangely, the Gato class planes seemed to have twice the effect, so I had to reduce the coefficients by half. Perhaps there is a mistake in the coding where they applied the effect for each plane, instead of for each pair? There didn't seem to be any apparent reason why they would behave so much differently.

I adjusted the CG, and calibrated the diving so each boat diving from periscope depth at 6 kn. would achieve a dive angle of 10 to 10.5 degrees. This means that in 'normal' dives, the boats should keep within 15 deg. at all times. This is the limit of the inclinometers at the dive station, so I consider this a sensible limit. 'Crash' dives may exceed this angle, however.

One other thing about boat trim. I mentioned that the GC should probably be somewhere forward of the middle, but because of some mistake in the game coding, this doesn't work. I decided to move the CG slightly to the rear. This has no measurable effect on the performance of the dive planes, but gives a slight downward angle at normal trim. This amounts to something between 0.5 and 1.0 degree. I did this to speed up the creeping phase of dives, where the last 10 feet of descent takes so long. This reduces the rise angles you get when ascending, but this is of little consequence, as the boats seemed to have much less trouble rising to a certain depth, than diving to a certain depth.

***

Next post: Ballast tank flood rates.

dom111

08-31-14, 04:52 AM

I'm looking forward to read your next post, very interesting, keep up the good work :up:

TorpX

09-07-14, 02:01 AM

Ballast tanks:

Sorry for the delay. I meant to post this stuff last week, but had second thoughts about the results. That's happened more than a few times; what looks good at 3 AM when you are tired and want to finish, doesn't always look ok in the harsh light of day. :-?

I did supplemental tests with the S, Tambor, and Narwhal classes, changing only the flood rates of the ManBT and DiveBT tanks.

In each case, I ordered the crew to GQ, and got the boat up to 10 kn. Ordered a dive to 165 ft. and recorded the time at 35 and 40 ft. Then I surfaced the boat and TC'd to get the boat back to a normal equilibrium, and ordered a 'crash' dive and recorded the times again. The reason I used 35 and 40 ft. was that this would be just enough to allow the full submergence of the vessel, without the dive planes or other factors making a large difference. The flood times I chose were based on provisional values I had decided on, and reasonable spreads above/below those. (14 sec. for Tambor, 42 sec. for S-class, 56 sec. for Narwhal.)

Flood rates were calculated as follows:

(submerged disp. - surface disp.) / (flood time * .00114) = ManBT

.00114 converts from liters/sec. to tons/sec.

S-18 class,

ManBT 4795, DiveBT 48
[30 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:32, 0:42 ________Crash ________0:22, 0:26

ManBT 3425, DiveBT 35
[42 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:34, 0:48 ________Crash ________0:23, 0:27

ManBT 2664, DiveBT 27
[54 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:37, 0:54 ________Crash ________0:23, 0:27

Tambor class,

ManBT 43860, DiveBT 439
[10 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:27, 0:30 ________Crash ________0:22, 0:25

ManBT 31328, DiveBT 314
[14 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:32, 0:37 ________Crash ________0:26, 0:30

ManBT 24366, DiveBT 244
[18 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:36, 0:42 ________Crash ________0:29, 0:33

Narwhal,
ManBT 18170, DiveBT 182
[42 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 1:00, 1:15 ________Crash ________0:40, 0:49

ManBT 13628, DiveBT 136
[56 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 1:18, 1:35 ________Crash ________0:44, 0:55

ManBT 10902, DiveBT 109
[70 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 1:30, 1:55 ________Crash ________0:47, 0:59

With the S class, starting with a 30 sec. flood time we get to 35 ft. in about 32 sec., as we might expect, but adding 12 sec. to the FT adds only 2 sec. to the result, and adding 24 sec. to FT adds only 5 seconds. Even stranger is the fact that the crash dive times hardly change at all!

The Tambor seemed to behave more rationally. Starting with a 10 sec. FT gives a time of 27 sec. Adding 4 sec. to the FT adds 5 sec. to the result, and adding 8 sec. to the FT adds 9 sec. to the dive. Crash dive times were only slightly faster starting at 22 sec. and going up 4 and 7 seconds, respectively.

With the Narwhal, a FT of 42 sec. produces a dive time of 60 sec. and adding 14 sec. to the FT adds 18 sec. to the result. Adding 28 sec. to FT adds 30 sec. to the result. Crash dive times start at 40 sec. and go up by 4 sec. and 7 sec.

To try and clarify the results I did a few supplementary tests:

I repeated the Tambor tests (18 sec. FT) but lowered the DiveBT from 244 to 122, and then to 12. The results were the same. The DiveBT value seems very unimportant in all this. I will come back to this in a little bit.

Here is a retest of both the S, and Narwhal classes using values to give them 14 sec. flood times like with the Tambor:

S-18 class,

ManBT 10275, DiveBT 103
[14 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:26, 0:31 ________Crash ________0:19, 0:22

Narwhal,
ManBT 54511, DiveBT 545
[14 sec. flood time]

Dive_______time at 35, 40 ft. _____ Dive _____time at 35, 40 ft.
Normal_______ 0:31, 0:36 ________Crash ________0:27, 0:31

We see that the Narwhals times are very close to the Tambor, but the S-class is considerably faster, perhaps because it is smaller.

So, it is apparent, that crash dive times are much faster than normal dive times, and this is especially so where normal dive times are slow. ManBT values affect normal dive times more than crash times and DiveBT values are of little import, so long as they are above zero. The only time I noticed any change from the DiveBT is when I used zero. The boat seemed to dive normally to a deep depth, but when I ordered p/s depth, the boat went above and could not get back down to p/s depth.

I just decided to use 1% of the ManBT values. Whatever the mass/buoyancy factor of the 'dive' tanks, they cannot be changed and we are stuck with them. It isn't clear to me if this is intended, or is another part that was miscoded.

Note that there is a benefit obtained with crash dives, even if there is no propulsion. I wasn't sure about this until I tested it. So one can order crash dive, and then reduce speed immediately to stay quiet.

I would've liked to use real/historical values of flood rates/ times, but I could not find anything on this. In my mind, historical ratings for dive times are somewhat murky, due to the fact that we have very little detail in terms of the procedures used. For instance, in the game MBT's start flooding seemingly at once, but I'm not sure that this should be so. We can mod the flood rates to delay complete filling, but cannot delay the start of the process. It is hard to believe that the S, and Narwhal classes had tank arrangements that flooded that slowly, yet we know they were considered to be very slow divers. For these reasons, diving performance is likely to be a thorny issue.

TorpX

09-16-14, 12:33 AM

Here is a preview of USN sub performance.

TAMBOR CLASS

Acceleration from stop:

RFB
speed, kn. ___5_______10______15______20

time, sec. ___0:05____0:11_____0:25____1:07

ISP 2.0
speed, kn. ___5_______10______15______20
time, sec. ___0:21____0:43_____1:15____2:25

Turing, 180 degree turn:

RFB
surface at 15 kn.
slows to ________ time to complete_________dia. of circle
6.0 kn._______________4:16________________520 yd.

submerged at 6 kn.
2.3 kn.______________11:53 ________________ 550 yd.

ISP 2.0
surface at 15 kn.
9.8 kn. ______________2:20 _________________500 yd.

submerged at 6 kn.
4.8 kn. ______________4:38 _________________450 yd.

Diving from 10 kn. to periscope depth:

RFB
depth, ft. ____20 ________40 ________60
time _______0:07 ______0:32 ______ 2:15
speed, kn.___9.0 ________6.6 _______ 5.2
angle, deg. _ - __________ -1 _______ 0

ISP 2.0
depth, ft. ____20 ________40 ________60
time _______0:08 ______0:38 ______ 1:36
speed, kn.___9.0 ________4.8 _______ 4.5
angle, deg. _ - __________ -6 _______ -0.5

Diving from p/s depth to 200 ft. @ 6 kn.:

RFB
depth, ft. ____80 _____120 _____160 ____ 199
time _______0:27 ____1:25 ____2:58 ____ 8:05
speed, kn. ___5.7 _____5.5 _____5.3 _____5.9
angle, deg. __-1 ______-2.5 _____-3 ______0

ISP 2.0
depth, ft. ____80 _____120 _____160 ____ 199
time _______ 0:31 ____1:16 ____2:11 ____5:24
speed, kn. ___5.3 _____5.2 ______5.1 _____6.0
angle, deg. ___-6.5 ____-10 _____-9.5 _____-0.5

[Climbing from 200 ft. to p/s depth is comparable, with ISP angle reaching about +7 deg. and times being faster for both.]

Crash dives from surface starting at 10 kn.:

RFB
depth, ft. ____40 ______80 ______120 ______149
time _______0:26 ____0:51 _____1:31 ______3:55
speed, kn. ___10.8 ____10.2 _____9.2 _______9.0
angle, deg. __-6 _______-5.5 _____-5 ________0

ISP 2.0
depth, ft. ____40 ______80 ______120 _____160 ____199
time _______0:29 ____0:54 _____1:15 ____1:39 ____3:45
speed, kn. ___7.5 _____7.9 ______8.0 _____7.9 _____9.0
angle, deg. ___-7 ______-13.5 ____>-15 ____>-15 ___-0.5

Battery performance is unchanged from v1.1.

In both RFB and ISP, the subs have a much easier time going from deep submergence to p/s depth than vice-versa. By this I mean that the last 10 feet or so of the depth change is much faster going up than down. It is not clear to me why this should be so, but it is. I worked a great deal trying to minimize this slow creeping tendency, but was only partly successful.

Other fleetboats have similar performance. As I said before the Gatos seemed to behave differently for no good reason; the dive plane drag coefficients had about double the effect, so I halved the numbers and adjusted so they would come out about the same.

The S-class have slower flood times for the MBT's and have more difficulty getting under, but are calibrated to take on a 10 degree dive angle as the others.

The Narwhal are very sluggish and unmaneurverable (by design), and have very slow flood times. They are also more 'loggy' once under the surface.

The S-class still have turning circles of ~800 yds., but nevertheless benefit from making faster turns. I gave the Narwhals turning circles of about 650 yds. (no data for these).

Note that I used propulsion numbers from after their '42 refits, so they are not so underpowered as they would be before. Still, they are not the same as the fleetboats!

Next post:

Surface Ships

TorpX

09-16-14, 10:44 PM

Surface Ships:

'max_force' and acceleration

The key to reducing the acceleration of ships was getting the 'max_force' values right. This was accomplished by carefully tabulating enough results, and changing one input at a time to permit a good analysis of the results. There are too many ships to try to do individual trial and error work here.

In S3D, the 'max_force' values are said to be in tons, but I knew this wasn't correct, early on. If it was the case, large ships would require larger values of 'max_force', than I used. In every case, I sought to use values at, or very near, the minimum required to achieve the stated maximum speed of the vessel in question.

I skip some of the mind-numbing detail here, but I first came up with a formula based on purely empirical observations. However, I wasn't fully confident of this, so I did a series of more systematic experiments, and analysis. This lead to the same equation, except that the results regarding what I called the potential maximum speed were not clear-cut, and possibly should be to a power greater than 1, like S^1.2 or S^1.3. I tried this, but the simpler formula I had before seem to produce the better results, so I used that.

F = K * P / (M * S)

where

F is max_force (??)
P is eng_power (effective horse power)
M is mass (tons)
S is maximum speed (knots)
K is a constant

I used this formula to calculate the values of 'max_force' for both subs and ships alike, and tests showed that results were very acceptable. By this I mean craft were able to reach maximum speed, but with much slower acceleration than before.

For the ships, I took the displacement, at either 'full load', or 'normal load', and used half the rated engine hp. I can't remember where I read it, but the source considered the effective horse power to be about half the rated engine horse power. This seemed right to me. Higher eng_power makes for faster acceleration, and faster deceleration. Lower values reduce both. I didn't have any specific figures to go by, but this seemed to work well. [For instance, if you are submerged, you should be able to slow from 6 kn. to 3 kn. reasonably fast without backing engines.] Then I used the above with a value of 0.15 for K to obtain the proper value of 'max_force'.

The same procedure was used for the subs, then the calculation was repeated using the submerged propulsion numbers; displacement, eng_power, and max_speed, with a value of 0.20 for K. The higher result of the two was retained. Usually, the subs had more difficulty getting up to their max speed when submerged.

For example, the Clemson DD has a powerplant rated at 27,600 hp and a displacement of 1,308 t, and a maximum speed of 35.5 kn.

Half of the value of 27,600 hp is used, in the calculation, to obtain a 'max_force' of 0.0446. Note that half of 27,600 hp is also used in the *.sim file.

Ok, now you're probably wondering what does this 0.0446 number really mean. What does this come to in real money?

Well, it turns out that the maximum acceleration is approx. equal to 1000 times the 'max_force', in knots per minute. So, for the Clemson, we can expect that it would be able to reach about 11 knots in 15 seconds. Of course, drag reduces the rate of acceleration as the speed increases; this is the maximum.

Turning Performance

I experimented quite a bit with different number schemes as far as rudder drag and prop factors are concerned. There aren't necessarily clear-cut advantages of one over another.

RFB and stock use higher rudder drag and low prop factors. This slows down subs turning quite a lot. I decided in the end to use a higher prop factor and lower drag. This made for a big improvement in the subs, but about the same results for surface ships. This was somewhat disappointing, but perhaps is a realistic result. (I couldn't find much of the way in data for this speed drop.) In any case, I found a rudder drag of 0.01 and prop factor of 0.5 to give good results for most ships. For very tight turning ships, like DE's, I used 0.015 and 1.0, respectively. This was necessary, as the lower numbers, even when combined with lower LR drag numbers, didn't cut it. IMO, the stock prop factors of 0.05 are just too low, and most of the turning effect should come from the prop factor, with only enough of rudder drag to balance things out. If no rudder drag is used, ships tend to overturn and it gets very sloppy.

For LR drag, I used 0.2 for most ships, but 0.1 for some tight turning ships, and 0.3 for destroyers that turned poorly.

Stability

I didn't make many changes in this area. It didn't seem to be needed, for the most part. Someone recently mentioned problems here in RFB, and I did happen to see instability in the Fubuki DD while testing. In ISP 2.0, it seemed ok, though the GC (gravity center) was the same. I suspect this is due to small differences in the draft. If anyone finds they need to correct instability, I would try adjusting draft first before messing with the GC. Small increases in draft seem to help quite a bit.

I did adjust the draft/GC of the small minesweepers and kaibokans in the mod, as I remembered seeing them rolling back and forth.

TorpX

09-17-14, 08:50 PM

Weather and Sea-keeping

I tried mightily to get realistic sea-keeping for ships, like with the subs, but no go. Most of the speed loss with the subs in heavy seas comes from the game computing increased drag when the hull goes down into the water. The game has to do this to have sensible diving behavior, of course. Only the smaller part of the speed loss is due to the screws coming out of the water. With the ships, there is a small speed loss with the screws coming out of the water, but this doesn't last long enough to have a large effect. There is no defined submerged propulsion for the ships, so there is no increased drag effect either.

I mentioned some time ago, I was able to produce wind speeds above 15 m/s in missions. Unfortunately, in a campaign, the weather would stick, and would not change. So I reluctantly set this idea aside, and left the weather as it is in v1.1. I may try to develop some better weather mod down the road.

dom111 mentioned the severe speed drop in merchants that do the constant helming thing. I considered reworking the turning in such a way as to specifically counteract this tendency, but decided against it. From a physics standpoint, I think the turning is pretty good. It is probably possible to reduce this by reducing the rate of turning, but it is not clear to me that it would be a worthwhile tradeoff. In any case, I thought it better to get feedback on things as they are. Perhaps, I might revisit this issue in the future.

Below are a short sample of ISP 2.0 ship tests:

Hog Island freighter [max_force .003780]

RFB acceleration from stop
speed _____0 ______2 ______4 ______6 ______8 ______10
time _____0:00 ___ 0:04 ___ 0:08 ___0:15 ___0:27 ____0:49

ISP 2.0
speed _____0 ______2 ______4 ______6 ______8 ______10
time _____0:00 ___0:29 ___0:59 ____1:33 ___2:17 ____3:29

New Mexico BB [max_force .004080]

RFB
speed ______ 0 ______5_______10 ________15 _______20
time ______ 0:00 ___0:07 ____0:19 ______0:41 ______ 1:33

ISP 2.0
speed ______ 0 ______5_______10 _______15 ________20
time ______ 0:00 ___1:05 ____2:17 _____3:52 _______6:58

Brooklyn CL [max_force .018900]

RFB
speed ____ 0 _____5_____10 _____15 _____20 ____25 ___30
time ____0:00 ___0:04 ___0:05 ___0:08 ___0:13 __0:20 __0:36

ISP 2.0
speed ____ 0 ______5_____10 _____15 _____20 ____25 ___30
time ____0:00 ___0:15 ___0:29 ___0:45 ___1:04 ___1:31 __2:16

Clemson DD [max_force .044600]

RFB
speed __0 ____5 ____10 _____15 _____20 ____25 _____35
time __0:00 __0:03 __0:04 ___0:05 ___0:07 __0:09 ____0:29

ISP 2.0
speed __0 ____5 ____10 _____15 _____20 ____25 _____35
time __0:00 __0:08 __0:14 ___0:20 ___0:27 ___0:38 ___1:23

In the mod, I'm putting in the options folder, a test mission where you can launch torpedoes under some sitting ships, to see how they accelerate. The mission should be installed manually, so you can run it with, and without the mod, to see the difference here.

TorpX

09-19-14, 07:36 PM

Acceleration and Deceleration

One of our members mentioned that his boat didn't respond well when stopping or backing. (This in RFB.) This didn't surprise me as I had done some tests early on with ISP.

Of course, I wanted to post some specific numbers. I figured it was easier to run a new test, than to try to find the relevant notes from months ago (if I even made any).

submerged, at 6 kn., All Stop

RFB
speed, kn. ____6 ______5 ______4 ______3 ______2
time _______0:00 ___0:48 ____1:45 ____3:21 ___6:18

ISP 2.0
speed, kn. ____6 ______5 ______4 ______3 ______2
time _______0:00 ____0:15 ___0:33 ___0:57 ____1:46

submerged, at 6 kn., Back Slow

RFB
speed, kn. ____6 ______5 ______4 ______3 ______2 ______0
time _______0:00 ____0:40 ___1:34 ____2:34 ___3:59 ___5:43
[can reach 2.6 kn.]

ISP 2.0
speed, kn. ____6 ______5 ______4 ______3 ______2 ______0
time _______0:00 ____0:11 ___0:25 ____0:40 ___0:59 ___1:21
[can reach 3.0 kn.]

The striking difference here is due to the low value of E propulsion eng_power used in RFB and stock. This illustrates why it is undesirable to rely on manipulation of eng_power alone, to dampen acceleration.

Note, that acceleration characteristics are comparable.

Ships

I decided to use the RSRDC selection of ships. I believe most RFB users usually use RSRDC, and RSRDC adds a number of ships to the game. I didn't want to have to come up with two separate mods and I don't think ISP 2.0 will work properly without RSRDC. The extra ships won't do any harm, but RSRDC added aircraft and changed air groups of carriers (and maybe some cruisers?), so I had to work from RSRDC files.

There were a few ships in RSRDC which did not have *.sim files. This bothered me, as I felt that they should have distinctive propulsion characteristics. These included the Yubari light cruiser, some destroyers, and maybe a few others. Others, like the Clemson APD, and Momi Patrol Boat, received major changes, since their capabilities seemed to harken back to their destroyer days.

aanker

09-28-14, 11:25 AM

Thank you TorpX, appreciate your attention to detail and the time you put into 'fine tuning' RFB.

Happy Hunting!

3catcircus

09-28-14, 02:46 PM

I installed ISP 2.0 and have run into what may be a bug.

Mods as follows:

RFB 2.0
RFB 2.0 Patch 23 April 2010
RSRDC RFB V575
RSRDC V5xx patch 1
Stock Map Icons
Fixed CD sonar RSRDC
Hydropnone Line Extended
OPCFv1.3 RFB20 yellow

I uninstalled ISP 1.1 before installing ISP 2.0

Fired 3 torps at a freighter and it sat there. Fired 3 more and it still sat there. Tried it again on a different ship. Same result. They seem to just sit there lower in the water. I saved the game, uninstalled ISP 2.0 and reinstalled ISP 1.1 and loaded that same save and watched the ship then begin listing before sinking.

TorpX

09-28-14, 09:20 PM

I installed ISP 2.0 and have run into what may be a bug.

Fired 3 torps at a freighter and it sat there. Fired 3 more and it still sat there. Tried it again on a different ship. Same result. They seem to just sit there lower in the water. I saved the game, uninstalled ISP 2.0 and reinstalled ISP 1.1 and loaded that same save and watched the ship then begin listing before sinking. Ok, I'm not sure what the circumstances are.

Did this happen in a mission, a career, in the open sea, in a harbor?

If you are talking about ships in port, know that docked ships cannot move - period. That has nothing to do with the mod. Ships that are simply standing still, but not docked, should be able to accelerate according to their engine/propulsion details. Freighters are mostly underpowered, and will be slow to get up to speed.

If you are asking about torpedoed ships, damage will likely slow them down. I haven't changed the damage model.

Uninstalling ISP 1.1 and installing ISP 2.0 is ok, but I wouldn't do it in the middle of a combat situation. I have no idea what might happen.

I am really not clear what happened here.

***

Thanks, aanker.

:subsim:

3catcircus

09-29-14, 05:43 AM

Ok, I'm not sure what the circumstances are.

Did this happen in a mission, a career, in the open sea, in a harbor?

If you are talking about ships in port, know that docked ships cannot move - period. That has nothing to do with the mod. Ships that are simply standing still, but not docked, should be able to accelerate according to their engine/propulsion details. Freighters are mostly underpowered, and will be slow to get up to speed.

If you are asking about torpedoed ships, damage will likely slow them down. I haven't changed the damage model.

Uninstalling ISP 1.1 and installing ISP 2.0 is ok, but I wouldn't do it in the middle of a combat situation. I have no idea what might happen.

I am really not clear what happened here.

***
Thanks, aanker.
:subsim:

Circumstances as follows:

I installed ISP 2.0 while in-port in the middle of a career. Was in the Sea of Japan (in the straits just to the west of Sasebo) and attacked a freighter that was underway. Hit it with three torpedoes (MK 18's) and waited a good hour (time accelerated). Hit it with about 10 rounds of 5" and waited another 30 mins. Maneuvered to the opposite side of the ship and hit it with three more torpedoes. All in, I sat there for (time accelerated) about 6 hours. The ship sat there, adrift, but not sinking.

I went hunting another one close by (lots of traffic in this area) and the same thing happened when I attacked that one.

I uninstalled ISP 2.0 and reinstalled ISP 1.1 in the middle of combat after saving the game. When I loaded the save, the 2nd ship I attacked immediately blew up and rapidly sunk. Looking to the other ship, It was also in the midst of sinking.

TorpX

09-29-14, 09:54 PM

Ok, I get the picture.

The only thing I changed in the damage values is lowering the crash speed in the *.zon file. I did this so that the ships would not be sinking in heavy seas. A fatally damaged ship should still sink; just not as fast. Weapons damage and ship hit points were not changed.

If I get more reports of this nature, I'll consider changing the crash speed back. I'm reluctant to do this, however, as this could result in most ships sinking in stormy weather. The game options in this area seem to be limited.

Thank-you for taking the time to report back.

TorpX

10-03-14, 09:38 PM

I'm starting work on v2.1 now.

To get a better idea of the severity of the problem, I set up a mission and shot torpedoes into different merchant ships.

Medium Old Composite Fr.

no ISP
1333 hit mid., 1344 hit bow, 1355 going down, 1357 gone

ISP 2.0
1318 hit mid., 1319 hit stern, 1429 hit bow, 1557 hit mid., 1800 2 hits bow stern, 1838 2 hits mid, bow, 1838 going down, 1840 gone

Medium Modern Split Fr.

no ISP
1336 hit mid., 1422 hit stern, 1446 going down, 1447 gone

ISP 2.0
1322 hit mid., 1432 hit stern, 1617 hit bow, 1617 going down, 1622 gone

Medium Modern Composite Fr.

no ISP
1339 hit mid., 1407 going down, 1409 gone

ISP 2.0
1326 hit mid., 1511 hit stern, 1625 hit stern, 1640 hit bow, 1711 hit mid. - did not sink

Small Old Split Fr.

no ISP
1454 hit mid., 1557 hit stern, 1602 going down, 1604 gone

ISP 2.0
1844 hit mid., 1942 hit stern, 2015 hit bow, 2055 hit mid., used 50 + shells - rammed twice - won't sink.

without ISP, I was able to 7 other merchants with 10 other torpedoes (Mk. 14). This was all with auto targeting and no torp malfunctions. With ISP 2.0, I ran out of torps after the above four ships.

I also used the deck gun to destroy a fishing boat with ISP 2.0. It only took about 10 rds. and registered sunk quickly, though it seemed to take longer to go down completely.

It would seem that the "normal" flooding is interrupted by the changed CrashSpeed, and sinking targets required either some sort of critical damage, or blasting away all the target's hit points ??

Odd that some targets will seem to sink easily, but often not.

waffle

10-03-14, 10:31 PM

TorpX

10-04-14, 12:36 AM

I remember something in the RFB notes about the sinking mechanics and how the HP was raised to really high amounts in order to compensate for the realistic sinking physics that was put in place by the mod...or something along those lines.

Yes, that is basically true.

However, many ships were left in their stock configuration. A mod, Warship Damage Model was released to be used with RFB, with more ships being altered, but I don't think they ever got to all of them. So some are in one kind of configuration, and some are in another.

Here are some samples:

Stock
survivor ............................1 hit point
CMD_small_boat ..................15
JPFish01 ............................50
most merchants ....................300 to 400
most BB's .............................800 to 1000
Yamato BB ...........................1500

Naka CL ................................2160 [somebody has a high opinion of this one! :)]

RFB 2.0
CMD_small_boat ..................50
JPFish01 ............................4000

most merchants ....................4000
most DD's ............................4000
US subs ...............................15000

RFB doesn't change most cruisers, battleships, or allied DD's. So one is left with the oddity of merchants having more hit points than a BB, and a sub having much more again.
My understanding is ships can be destroyed in 3 ways: 1. all hit points are exhausted, 2. destruction of 'critical' area (like keel), 3. be pulled down by flooding. I guess the last is what usually happens with RFB.

If anybody has this mod, Warship Damage Model, could you upload it to subsim?

aanker

10-04-14, 10:46 AM

Can you ftp into Kickinbak?

I had a Password to get in there however I can't get in anymore. I can log into Kickinbak forum no problem, just don't have ftp access to the files.

I'll bet the file is in Kickinbak.... or at least a WIP on the damage models of the warships in Warship Damage Model

TorpX

10-04-14, 08:43 PM

Can you ftp into Kickinbak?

I had a Password to get in there however I can't get in anymore.

Last time I tried, I had the same problem.

When I have time I'll try to find it in some of my external HD's. I thought I saved everything from my old drives, but I haven't found it yet.

***

Since the modified *.zon files in ISP 2.0 are causing problems, I did a test with some ships with those files. I was pleased to find a group of 9 different merchants was able to continue at 9 kn. through 12 m/s seas without sinking for 24 hours. This is with my bigger waves, of course. I will have to test some of the other ships, but this is encouraging.

Since I will have to make a new version, I think I will try to fix (or reduce) the 'constant helming' problem.

merc4ulfate

10-04-14, 10:12 PM

waffle

10-04-14, 10:37 PM

Indeed something with how in RFB ships sink based the flooding model and not the old hp system. Sounds like Torpx is already on top of it tho with the crashspeed variables

TorpX

10-05-14, 02:32 AM

Those unruly hit points must be what I ran into ...

I had 11 fish in a freighter and it would not go down.

I reverted back to ISP 1, reloaded a save at that location and time re-fired at the ship and it went down in two fish.

ISP 2 changes or cause a miss somewhere so that fish have less value or something.

11 fish and not sinking on a medium composite is just unheard of. I waited three days at least and it just sat there dead in the water.

I agree. It is a nonsensical result. The torps and shells are the same, but I did change the CrashSpeed. In the stock files, the values for the surface ships are all either .5 or 1, same with RFB. I had changed them to .1 to eliminate sinking in heavy seas. I didn't think it would impact sinking from weapons. Holed compartments should still flood the same, after all. Maybe the crews were able to pump out water as fast as it came in?

I did some more testing with the merchants. Of the 10 selected, 7 were able to go 24 hrs in 12 m/s waves without problems. Two sank, but I think it is partly a matter of stability, and I can fix that. The Hog Island type 'A' lost speed and seemed to be taking on water after ~20 hrs., but was still going at 24 hrs. This ship has a low freeboard, and is a likely candidate for trouble in rough seas.[This with a CrashSpeed of 0.5]

Indeed something with how in RFB ships sink based the flooding model and not the old hp system. Sounds like Torpx is already on top of it tho with the crashspeed variables

Well, I was pretty sure it had to be the CrashSpeed; I didn't change anything else in the damage dept. I guess I will change the Naka class CL, since I can't think of any good reason why a light cruiser should have more hit points than the Yamato.

waffle

10-05-14, 01:20 PM

Very cool, thanks for being awesome torpx!

TorpX

10-06-14, 12:35 AM

Very cool, thanks for being awesome torpx!

Well, maybe not.

While I was testing the sea-keeping, I decided to torpedo some of these ships. Of ten ships, 2 sank with one torp, 4 sank with greater effort, and 2 not at all (2 were not hit). That seems to eliminate the CrashSpeed theory.

My next hypothesis was that changes in the ships' mass was the problem, but that didn't seem to pan out, either.

I did manage to get my test ship, a Nagara Maru, to sink, finally, by changing the submerged displacement and draft to zero. I don't really know what's going on with this.

In the stock files, most ships have a defined mass, and undefined displacement/draft, but a few do. In RFB, most ships have a undefined mass, and a defined surface displacement/draft. It isn't clear why this is so (at least not to me). I will pretty much have to start from scratch on this.

Without any rhyme or reason in this, I may have to test each ship, to make sure they will sink.

For those who were using, or want to use ISP 2.0, I would recommend either going back to ISP 1.1, or deleting the 'Sea' folder from ISP 2.0 before you enable it.

TorpX

10-07-14, 12:24 AM

More testing today............

I think I've figured out why some ships are reluctant to sink.

I set up 6 ships in another mission, 4 merchants (at least 3 of these are in the 'we no sinky' club, the Hog Island (which would sink ok), and a Kuma light cruiser to round out the group.

First, I set the submerged draft to a value close to the surface draft. Then I fired 2 torps at each. Only the Kuma sank. I repeated the mission to see if the Kuma CL would sink with one torp and found it seems designed to sink. Note that RFB doesn't alter the Kuma; it has only 400 hit points.

Then, I increased the submerged depth on all the ships to stock level, and hit them with two torps again (except just one for the Kuma). All but the Akita Maru sank. Gave it another; still floats.

Looking at the Akita, I increased the sub. draft from 12 to 15m, and repeated the mission. Two torps and they all sank, though not all quickly.

It seems that the submerged draft must be high enough to have the water over the ship's side. If not, it will sink down part way and stay there. I'm not sure if there is any substantial disadvantage to having it higher than necessary. I'll have to do some more testing here.

In ISP 2.0, I had set the values pretty close to the surface draft. The idea here was to have heavy seas change the way the ships maneuvered, but didn't know it would have an impact on the sinking mechanics. For ships with little freeboard, this doesn't seem to matter, but with others, this would seem to be critical.

waffle

10-07-14, 03:57 PM

hmmm interesting thanks for the updates torpx!

TorpX

10-07-14, 10:20 PM

I've done some more testing with this mission.

I've set the submerged draft of these ships to '0', and found they will often sink with 1 hit. I was concerned that maybe they were too vulnerable, so I ran the mission with RFB alone, and found similar results. The Kuma was a little odd in that a hit in the stern area was survivable, but not in the bow, or middle. Two would finish it quickly.

I'm satisfied that this will fix the no sink issue, but I'll do some final checks when I'm ready.

Also, I'm doing some testing with new turning schemes. The reason being to reduce the constant helming problem. I found a set of numbers that worked ok with the Nagara Maru, but I'll need to test it with a fair cross section of vessels before I can consider it a go. It uses a very low LR drag, so I have some doubts. In past tests I noticed some squirrely behavior with this sort of thing. I'll just have to see how it goes.

***

About the 'Warship Damage Model', I mentioned the other day, I was searching my drive and found it. There may be more than one version, but I think this is the only one I have. It is labeled "RFB_WDM_17Jan09". I was excited to find this, but there was no readme or documentation inside; perhaps it was overwritten or lost. Anyway, looking inside I found only one ship; the CL Agano. I guess it was a project, that was never completed.

waffle

10-18-14, 01:41 PM

How goes things torpx!

Currently running with isp 2.0 without the sea folder included and everything has been going smoothly.

TorpX

10-21-14, 11:30 PM

Time for another update!

I meant to post this a few days ago, but I'm still busy working on this.

I think the sinking issue is solved. I still have to do final tests, but I don't anticipate any problems. I'm tinkering with the stability of the ships now, so I want to test sinking after I've made the changes. There is no problem with the ships being unstable; rather the reverse, the GC values I used in v2.0 seem to make the ships too stable. I want them stable in calm weather, but they should roll about some in rough seas. Unfortunately, there is no formula I can use to calculate/predict results. I must use trial and error, so this is a tedious process.

I've finished with a new turning scheme. It should help the 'constant helming' issue significantly. I think this is worth some elaboration:

There are 3 basic factors I had in mind here,

1. power and acceleration

2a. turning circle

2b. turning speed

Note, that I divided turning into two parts. To a large extent, improving these are contradictory objectives. I tried very hard to reach targets that would allow realistic performance in all these aspects, but try as I might, I could not get the numbers to stretch that far. I could have any 2 out of 3, but not all of them. In v2.0 I made the turning circle a priority and didn't worry too much about the turning speed.

Later, retesting some merchants produced some discouraging results. Not all ships suffer the same speed loss in turns. It is more dramatic in big, underpowered ships like old battleships and merchants. Of course, this leads to the very unrealistic slow-downs when ships do the 'constant-helming' thing. I could forget about realistic power/accel. and simply "dial up" the power of slow ships, but I certainly don't want to do that, nor are the other choices very appealing.

After much thought about the problem, I decided on a two-pronged approach: Reduce the rudder drag and speed loss for larger ships, especially capitol warships and merchants, and consider turning circles to be secondary here. For the escorts, ASW ships, and most smaller ships, make the turning circles tighter and realistic, and consider turning speed secondary.

The large ships (and the merchants, especially) are underpowered, and need to have the best possible turning speed. If they are configured to turn tight, they slow down badly, and they cannot get back up to speed, quickly. These ships benefit most from using a minimal rudder drag.

The escorts, most of which are faster, ships do not slow as badly as the merchants, and can accelerate quickly coming out of a turn. I consider it more important for these ships to have a tighter turning circle. Obviously, this helps them lay out DC patterns.

In terms of game numbers, I've found that lowering the LR (left-right) drag does not produce a linear effect; As one tries low values below 0.1 and even more so below 0.05 there is little improvement in the turning circle. At '0', all control is lost; the ships slides sideways and slows down drastically. For the Nagara Maru, 0.02 seemed to be the threshold for stable turning. In terms of the circle diameter, there is no appreciable benefit of .02 over .05. I chose to keep the LR at 0.05 or above.

The rudder drag and prop factor are the other side of the coin. The prop factor, in itself, doesn't seem to cause any speed loss, but trying to use a zero drag with a high prop factor leads to unstable turning, where the ships turns past the desired course. By experimentation, I found I could use a rudder drag as low as 0.0025 with a prop factor of 0.5, provided the LR drag was not too low. For tighter turns, it is necessary to increase both the rudder drag and prop factor.

I haven't had time to do any specific tests related to the performance of these ships when 'constant-helming', but I am hopeful that they will be able to keep up their speed a lot better. Of course, this isn't a complete fix, but, perhaps, the next best thing.

waffle

10-22-14, 01:15 PM

Sounds great thanks for the update torpx!!!

hugh

10-22-14, 10:49 PM

Sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm guessing you popped those changes into the downloadable version of 2.0?

Keep up the good work.

TorpX

10-23-14, 10:12 PM

Sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm guessing you popped those changes into the downloadable version of 2.0?

No, I will have that, and other improvements, in v2.1 as soon as I can finish the work. It would take too much time to add incremental improvements week to week. I'm working on it at a goodly pace, and I hope to have it done in about a week.

Today, I spent testing the stability of ships in moderately rough seas. I've finished Japanese ships, and am working on US ships now. After I finish with this last series of tests, the work will be nearly done. I could have simply set the GC (center of gravity) low and have them very stable, but I want them to pitch and roll a fair amount in rough weather. This is a tedious process, involving small changes and observation, repeated over and over. There is really no way to blaze through it.

I do think people will be pleased with the final result.

***

A few days ago, I was doing tests with the AI Uboat9 and the AI Sen Toku, so they can be added to the fixes. I found out the game seems rather fussy about how these vessels sink. Depending on the changes I made, I might torpedo one, and sink it, but not get credit in the log, OR, torpedo it, and get credit for it 'going down', but have the thing floating there hours later.

Does anyone know just how the game handles this?

Also, I've found that when I put the JPGunBoat01, and JPGunBoat02 (these are small armed riverboats), in a mission they will show up, but not be ID'd by the crew (no auto targeting lock on), and not show up in the map contacts. They will shoot back ok, and can be sunk, but no way to get credit for them. This still happens, even with just RFB + RSRDC alone. Does anyone know why this would occur?

TorpX

10-25-14, 08:20 PM

Just a brief note here - I am finished with the ship stability tweaks and have only a few tests to do, so I can update and edit the documentation.

TorpX

10-26-14, 07:53 PM

ISP v 2.1 is now in the downloads section, ready to go!

ISP v 2.1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4565)

I'll briefly discuss a few things, that I either did not fully explain before, or just added recently.

Or course, the sinking issue is fixed.

I tweaked the GC values of all the ships, so they had, as well as I could observe, a realistic level of stability.

I also changed the mass of all the merchants. I only realized this recently, but RFB used the GRT rating of the merchants as the displacements. Meaning a 1250 GRT freighter weighs, and has a displacement of, 1250 t. However, the GRT is only a standard cargo capacity, and has nothing to do with the mass, or weight. Lacking any better guidelines, I went back to the stock mass values, which made for heavier, and more sluggish ships.

I changed the ranges of the S-class some. The reason for this is that I believe the reference I used, Norman Friedman's work, contains figures that are in error. I'll explain what I mean. Freidman gives the following figures for the S-18 and S-42:

S-18
3,420 nm @ 6.5 kn. Normal
8,950 nm @ 9.5 kn. Maximum

S-42
2,510 nm @ 6.5 kn. Normal
10,000 nm @ 8.1 kn. Maximum

So, what's wrong with these figures? Well, to begin with, the maximum ranges (using FBT's), are given at a higher speed. The extra weight would increase the draft, and lower the cruising speed. Looking at the other figures given, I found the weights for the fuel (in long tons):

S-18
53.93 normal
97.14 max

S-42
59.03 normal
150.94 max

So, how can a S-18 increase it's cruising range by 161%, with only 80% more fuel, and boost their speed in the bargain? The answer is it can't. The most reasonable explanation is that the cruising speed figures were transposed, and should read:
S-18
3,420 nm @ 9.5 kn. Normal
8,950 nm @ 6.5 kn. Maximum

S-42
2,510 nm @ 8.1 kn. Normal
10,000 nm @ 6.5 kn. Maximum

I tweaked the Sim.cfg file values. Mainly, lowering the thermal layer attenuation values. People have been saying that the thermal layer offers almost a cloak of invisibility, and looking at the figures, I could see why that might be the case. I put in a spare file with the old v 2.0 values, in case people want to use those.

I tried to do a quick test of the turning/constant helming issue, but the game didn't cooperate. I put two lone merchants on a straight course (one ~ 10 mi. behind the other so I could test them separately. I fire torpedoes in front and tracked their movements. Instead of doing the constant helming thing, they turned to the track, kept turning and basically reversed course. This was not due to anything in my mod, as this was a control test with RFB + RSRDC alone. Maybe I'll try again, later. I went back and checked the mission, and these were 'veteran' merchants. That may make a difference.

Perhaps people who use the mod can get some data on this in the coming weeks.

Happy Hunting!

- TorpX

waffle

10-27-14, 08:40 AM

Awesome thanks Torpx!!!

I will switch over to 2.1 as soon as i get back to port!

TorpX

10-27-14, 01:53 PM

I was running the Ship Sprint Test mission and noticed that the Kuma CL was slow. Checking, I found I made a mistake. In the Sea folder:
The NCL_Kuma.sim file has a max_force of 0.00316.
.
It should be 0.0316.
.
.
I will upload a corrected version in a week or so. With so many ships and parameters, it is possible that there are other mistakes, and I want to wait and see if any other problems are spotted before making a new version. In the meantime, users may want to fix this themselves with S3D. I didn't find any other mistakes in spot checks, but I can't check everything.
.
.
Also, people may notice that in the mission, the enemy ships won't attack you. This is because the mission is in 1940. It was not intended to be a tactical mission; just to show how the ships accelerate. If you want the ships to fight back, you can change the date to 1942, in the mission editor.

.
.
I will switch over to 2.1 as soon as i get back to port!
I think you should be able to do this at sea. The crew roster and special abilities elements haven't been changed. These are the touchy parts, that would cause problems.
.
.
I mentioned before, briefly that there is support for the Sen Toku AI sub. I don't know if any of these will show up in RSRDC, but they would probably only appear in 1945, and rarely. If you want to use the AI Sen Toku mod, enable it before this one. Otherwise, it will overwrite my changes for the sub.

chrysanthos

11-12-14, 04:18 AM

hehehehe

TorpX

11-12-14, 11:27 PM

hehehehe

What is so funny?

RCMorea

11-21-14, 11:22 PM

Torpx,

Thanks for your work on this. It is very good.

I have some feedback if you are interested. There had been some complaints of ships not sinking, and you did some work to fix that. The other day I was able to sink Yamato with two fish. Randomness being what it is, who knows what might be possible, but that seems a bit low. I would think half a dozen fish, all below the armor belt and all on one side, would stand a chance of doing it, but two seems a bit low.

Anyway, I guess this stuff is harder than it looks so thanks again for your efforts.

RCM

TorpX

11-22-14, 09:08 PM

Yes, I am interested in feedback; all the more so as I've had very little. I was hoping to hear some feedback about the turning in particular - the old 'constant helming' thing and all that.

Glad you like it.

As for the Yamato, I really didn't change the weapons/damage stuff, so I doubt my mod had anything to do with it. I don't know why it would sink with only two torps, but likely it was just your good luck (critical hits and all).

Funny you should mention this, though, I was thinking of maybe trying to do a full rework of the damage model sometime. There are a number of things I do not like about the existing one. The frailty of the big BB's, would be one of these things.

***

To any ISP users and interested parties:

I am tinkering with the scene.dat file to make a slightly better waves/sea-keeping performance for the subs, though this is a subjective thing. But, perhaps, I am the only one who will notice the difference. I haven't made any major breakthroughs; it's more a matter of squeezing the most out of the game mechanics that I can.

If nobody has found any particular bugs, I will then put this in the 'final', ISP release (for RFB). Then work up a TMO-friendly version. This will be a 'light' version without the special abilities/crew elements that conflict with TMO.

waffle

11-22-14, 10:46 PM

Will post detailed feedback soon hopefully... I should have more time within the next month or so.

TorpX

11-23-14, 07:13 PM

Roger.

Buddahaid

11-23-14, 11:11 PM

I just dl'd it and I had to start a new career to avoid start-up crashes.. In dock saves didn't matter.

TorpX

12-01-14, 06:46 PM

I just uploaded v 2.15 of ISP - HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4578).

The changes are limited to tweaking the scene.dat file to obtain better weather, and correction of typos I found.

The typos included the already mentioned Kuma-class CL and one in the LR drag of the Salmon.

The waves I worked quite a bit on to make the waves' effects severe at the upper end, but moderate below 13 m/s.

In the stock file, the waves are in four brackets defined at 0, 5, 10, and 15 m/s. I tried adding two more brackets, but the game just ignores the extra parts. I changed the points to 1, 5, 13, and 15. This allowed me to have very severe waves at 15, but normal characteristics below 13. I also manipulated some of the other values to produce as much slowing as I could get by with, without unwarranted side effects, or resorting to overly high waves. The max wave height was reduced, as well.

After all this, I ran a 24 hour test of a convoy of Japanese ships in 13 m/s waves to make sure they were ok.

At 15 m/s a 4 hour test gave the following figures (TC 32x):

S-18

6.2 kn. at flank
5.1 kn. at '10'

Tambor

9.5 kn. at flank
6.2 kn. at '10'

This version is interchangeable with the previous v2.1, as no crew roster/ability elements have been changed.

TorpX

12-03-14, 10:53 PM

Just to let everyone know, I started work on a version of ISP for TMO.

This will be 'light' version, for TMO alone (without RSRDC).

dom111

12-04-14, 06:17 AM

Good news, thanks TorpX.

Have you planned to do a TMO + RSRDC version for people like me who uses both?

Again thanks for your work and time

TorpX

12-05-14, 10:22 PM

Have you planned to do a TMO + RSRDC version for people like me who uses both?

Tbh, I wasn't planning on any further versions. I *might*, if this present version isn't too difficult, and works well, but no promises.

I decided to do a light TMO only version because Duci had some interesting ideas in TMO which made this more interesting to me (like convoys with zigging, for instance).

HertogJan

12-07-14, 05:28 PM

Tbh, I wasn't planning on any further versions. I *might*, if this present version isn't too difficult, and works well, but no promises.

I decided to do a light TMO only version because Duci had some interesting ideas in TMO which made this more interesting to me (like convoys with zigging, for instance).

:Kaleun_Binocular:

keeping my eye on this one

TorpX

12-09-14, 07:48 PM

Finished v2.4 for TMO.

This is a 'light' version for TMO alone.

Improved Ship Physics_2.4_TMO (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4580)
.
.
.
I didn't want to get into changing any special ability elements, but decided I had to to get what I wanted. The changes to TMO included adding another special ability officer for the S-classes. Using only one was too much of a drawback. Also, I had to make them active in only the engines/control rooms. Duci had them active in any room, and this is a severe disadvantage when it comes to recharging.
.
.
I had to figure out what was most appropriate for the unique ships in TMO. These include the German Z-class DD, E-boat, and one or two others.
.
.
There is a known issue with the E-boats and PT-boats. I noticed that they have a tendency to explode/catch fire/sink in rough seas. I am not sure why I didn't see this before with v2.x. Possibly, this was because I didn't test them at speed, or long enough to observe this. It could be changes to the wave mechanics, or differences to the zones.cfg file in TMO. Anyway, I upped the UD drag value from .05 to .10 for the Elco 'PT', and .15 for the E-boat. The E-boat uses the same 3d model as the Elco, but is a heavier, and more sea-worthy craft.
.
.
Duci has a NSS_AI_JapSub in TMO. I didn't have any idea what type of IJ sub to use as a guide. After some research, I settled on the Kaidai VIb type as the best choice to use. The Tambor was used for the AI fleetboat.

ReallyDedPoet

12-09-14, 09:08 PM

Nice :yep:

nionios

12-15-14, 08:45 AM

Finished v2.4 for TMO.

This is a 'light' version for TMO alone.

So isn't it compatible with OTC?I noticed that they have some common files.

TorpX

12-15-14, 09:50 PM

Someone asked the same question in the other section. Here is the best answer I can give you:

I can't give you a definitive answer. Your mod list looks ok, but you'll have to experiment some. I would suggest putting ISP 2.4 right after TMO. Then, with the mods after, pay attention to what, if anything, is overwritten.

These are the critical files changed by ISP 2.4:
all sub *.sim files >> sub physics
all sub *.cfg files >> engine settings

most ship *.sim files >> ship physics
a few ship *.cfg files >> ship displacements/speeds rec. manual

Scene.dat file >> weather/waves effects
Sim.cfg >> wave effects

also a few changes to special abilities in UPC Data folder.

I don't think most small mods will touch the special abilities area, so that should be ok.

If 1.5_Optical Targeting Correction 031312 for TMO 2.5 changes some of the ships' *.cfg files, I wouldn't be too concerned about that.

However, I consider the *.sim files, the Sim.cfg file, and the Scene.dat file to be critical. I would not use anything that overwrites these files.

Remember, if two (or more) mods change the same file, the one enabled last will prevail. This is where the load order comes in. Ordinarily, large mods are enabled first, then small mods last.

I highlighted the files I consider critical to ISP.

If there is a significant conflict, you may have to try to merge the files involved, or just accept the altered functionality.

nionios

12-16-14, 06:02 AM

OK, thanks.I pefer not to touch anything so i won't intall ISP yet.

TorpX

12-24-14, 11:22 PM

I uploaded the version for TMO and RSRDC.

There were actually fewer folders in the TMO version of RSRDC than the RFB version. lurker added the NDD_Hatsuharu, but that was the only thing I had to work up. There is also the NCVE_ASW, but this can use the NCVE_Taiyo file. RSRDC had the same version of Narwhal files as TMO, so this didn't require changes.

Improved Ship Physics v2.6_TMO_RSRDC (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4586)

dom111

12-26-14, 02:21 PM

Downloading and testing. Thanks a lot, TorpX, a Merry Christmas to you and all Subsim family:up::up::up:

TorpX

02-16-15, 01:01 AM

Well, I've just completed an arduous patrol in the S-39. The weather was absolutely awful. The wave effects were much worse than I experienced in the pre-release tests, so I will be working on a patch to address the issue. When I much worse, I mean I was unable to make any headway on the surface. I wound up diving the boat (which was hard in itself), and proceeding submerged at 3 kn. or so.

There are two things to consider with the weather: First, the effects of wind at a certain level, and second, the frequency of the condition and the frequency of the changes. I doubt that I can really change this, though.

Here is a tabulation of the weather I experienced:
Dec. 2 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 3 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 4 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 5 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 6 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 7 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 8 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 9 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 10 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 11 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 12 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 13 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 14 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 15 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 16 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 17 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 18 -clear, wind 5
Dec. 19 -clear,wind 15
Dec. 20 -clear,wind 15
Dec. 21 -clear/rain,wind 15
Dec. 22 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 23 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 24 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 25 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 26 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 27 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 28 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 29 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 30 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Dec. 31 -overcast, hv.rain,wind 15
Jan. 1 - pt. cloudy, wind 15
Jan. 2 - pt. cloudy, wind 15
Jan. 3 - pt. cloudy, wind 15
Jan. 4 - pt. cloudy, wind 6
Jan. 5 - pt. cloudy, wind 6
Jan. 6 - pt. cloudy, wind 10
Jan. 7 - pt. cloudy, wind 10
Jan. 8 - pt. cloudy, wind 9
Jan. 9 - pt. cloudy, wind 15
Jan. 10 - clear, wind 3
Jan. 11 - overcast, wind 15
Jan. 12 - clear, wind 0
Jan. 13 - pt. cloudy, wind 0
Jan. 14 - wind 15

days with mild winds (0 to 5): 20
days with moderate winds (6 to 10): 5
days with strong winds (11 to 15): 19

I noticed that the weather seemed to be "stuck" early on, and then change frequently later. I am wondering how the missions might contribute to this problem.

I am considering the idea where one could have 2 scene.dat files; one for 'typhoon season', and one for the remainder of the year, or something along these lines. Wave effects that are tolerable for short periods, aren't really tolerable for weeks on end, after all.

TorpX

02-24-15, 11:39 PM

I started work on fixing/improving the waves in ISP, today.

First, I ran a mission with 15 m/s wind with ISP, just to see if I was going crazy, or the seas were really that nasty.

S-18 going E for 1 hour at 32x:

1/3, standard, flank
1.7 5.1 4.8 ........nm traveled
2.8 5.1 5.3
2.7 4.2 5.5
3.0 5.0 7.1* ...............*wind changed

0.2 4.5 6.2 ............new mission start
2.0 3.0 4.6
3.4 4.8 4.8
3.0 2.2 1.8

The above number are about what I got in pre-release testing.

going S for 1 hour at 32x:

nil nil 0.5 ..............new start, got 'stuck'
nil 0.6 nil
nil nil 0.2

These last number are about what I experience on my patrol. The boat would more or less, get 'stuck' being batted back and forth between big waves and not getting anywhere.

It seems that the orientation of the waves has a significant effect on the speed you can sustain.

I then made a change to the scene.dat file, lowering the MaxWaveHeight from 650 to 400 and repeated the tests.

Set MaxWaveHeight from 650 to 400.

S-18 heading S for 1 hr. at 32x:

3.2 6.2 6.8
3.1 6.3 6.9
1.1 * 6.2 6.3 ...............* got 'stuck'

heading E

3.8 6.4 6.1
3.8 5.8 5.3
3.7 6.9 6.9

Set MaxWaveHeight to 500

S-18 heading S

3.8 6.1 6.5
4.0 5.9 6.1
4.0 6.1 5.9

heading E

0.1* 3.7 1.7* ...............*got 'stuck'
2.9 4.2 5.3 ...................wind dropped to 14

It is interesting to note that 'flank' speed is about the same speed as 'standard' here.

While the above seems like an improvement, it still has some odd behavior. Tomorrow, I'll try some other things.

pdiddy

03-02-15, 08:27 PM

Following this with interest as am sure others are also!

TorpX

03-03-15, 01:00 AM

Well, I've figured out the general form of the solution.

In simple terms, the problem is a matter of how big and how "nasty" to make the waves in ISP. I consider it essential to have waves that will have a significant operational effect. That is to say, will mechanically slow the subs down, and batter you about. The problem was that I had them a bit too nasty, and my little S-boat often found itself "stuck" and not really able to move (not a desirable situation). So, how to have weather and waves that will be severe at times, but not be an intolerable burden for a patrol?

First, I've changed the MaxWaveHeight and another element so even a S-class can move, albeit slowly, in 15 m/s winds. I tested it going both S and E, since the orientation N/S or E/W made a significant difference before. [The waves have a certain orientation and this can sometime show up in the speed your boat will make. I hadn't thought that it would be that much a factor before, so I missed it in early ISP tests.]

There remains, however, what to do when the game weather gets 'stuck on stupid' and hits you with 15 m/s winds for days (or weeks) on end. AFAIK, the variability of the weather is something that is set in the missions, but I'm not sure what rules the game follows, or how faithfully they are followed. Since it is not desirable to have to slog through 15 m/s winds and waves continuously for one's entire patrol, I am putting together a substitute scene.dat file that has the effects greatly reduced. I still must decide just how much to reduce them. This is not an ideal solution, since it will require some work on the part of the player, but, I feel, all things considered, is the best remedy to be found.

I'll explain the idea fully when I release the patch.

HertogJan

03-03-15, 05:10 AM

Seeing headwinds and side winds will slow you down to a near halt, I wonder if tailwinds will make you move faster.
It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't just wondering.

Wonder if my S-class will be able to handle 15- to 20knts :D

TorpX

03-03-15, 10:21 PM

So far as your movement is concerned, it doesn't matter what direction the wind comes from. The waves do not change their orientation or direction, nor does the wind have any drag effect on your boat.

If you take an external cam to the side of your boat, and watch for awhile, you will see waves moving toward you at times, and moving the opposite way at others, in the same time frame. The weather model certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

However, with I've made the wave effects such that they will slow you down quite a bit when the weather gets rough. I like this a lot, as it forces you to think seriously about patrol time, speed, fuel reserves, and things like that.

BUT, the wave effects largely disappear, if you go above 32x. I would prefer to have the option of playing at 64x, or even 128x, but the game takes shortcuts above 32x, and your speed rockets upward going from 32x to 64x. It is almost like a sci-fi movie where you are jumping into hyperspace, and are no longer subject to the laws of physics. AFAIK, there is nothing that can be done about this.

TorpX

03-14-15, 11:00 AM

I've uploaded the patch for ISP 2.x HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4639).

Basically, it is a matter of using 2 different scene.dat files, so one has a mixture of weather. One file provides the potential for stormy weather, while the other is for more moderate weather.

Improved Ship Physics 2.x Patch

Because of the shortcomings in the way weather is generated in SH4, it can often happen that one will have 15 m/s wind for many days, with no let up. With stock waves, this isn't of great consequence, but with the more formidable waves in ISP, it is like being in a never-ending storm. I found that in a S-class boat, it often happened that I could make no headway at 1/3 speed or even higher, when winds were 15 m/s. This patch is to correct this issues with the ISP 2.x mods.

Included are different versions of the scene.dat file, that have different wave properties, for all the 2.x versions of ISP (both for RFB and TMO). The patch is not JSGME ready, but installation is easy!

Installation for ISP 2.15 (for RFB):

Open up your copy of ISP 2.15 and locate the scene.dat file. Replace this with the one in the 'files for RFB versions' folder. This one will produce 'moderate' waves.

Next, put the 'ISP 2.15_SW_Patch' folder in your mods folder. This is a JSGME- ready mini-mod which has a version of the scene.dat file, which will produce 'severe' waves.

Installation for ISP 2.4/2.6 (for TMO):

Follow the same procedure as above, but use the files in the 'files for TMO versions' folder. The wave mechanics of the RFB and TMO files are the same, but some of the visual elements differ.

The 'moderate' wave versions of the files will produce lower waves than ISP had before. The effects at the higher end of the wind scale 11 to 15 m/s are not as high as before, and are more 'rounded'. Seas will become 'rough', but will never really be 'stormy'.
The 'severe' wave versions have higher waves at the higher end 11+ m/s, and especially at the 13+ m/s zone. Winds in this zone will produce 'stormy' seas. However, the severity has been reduced from earlier levels.

The idea here is that by alternating files the game uses, one can have a sensible variety of weather conditions, even though the game only has a wind range of 0 to 15 m/s, which really isn't adequate.

Use in the Game:

Start your patrol with the changed version of ISP, but without the ISP 2.15_SW_Patch. After every day, roll 2d6, and if the total is 11+, save the game, exit, and enable the ISP 2.15_SW_Patch mod. This means you will now have the potential for stormy weather. When you continue, roll 2d6 every day, and likewise save, exit, and disable the ISP 2.15_SW_Patch on a roll of 11+. If you have the patch enabled, and are in the midst of a storm (15 m/s wind), add +1 to the roll for every consecutive day of 15 m/s winds. This will limit the duration of any storms. In this way, by alternating from one version of scene.dat file to the other, you can get a more sensible variety of weather, in the game.

The following test figures will give an idea of the speed reduction one can expect.

I mainly tested the S-18, as it has the least favorable sea-keeping qualities.

Distance traveled by S-18 in 'moderate' 15 m/s wind (all figures at 32x, in nm)
at 1/3 standard flank
4.5 8.4 9.9 heading E
4.3 8.2 9.0
4.8 8.6 9.6 heading S
4.9 8.4 8.7

S-18 in 'severe' 15 m/s wind
at 1/3 standard flank
3.2 6.1 6.4 heading S
3.8 6.1 7.0
4.0 6.6 6.4
3.4 5.3 5.5 heading E
3.2 5.2 4.7
3.3 6.2 6.2

Tambor class in 'moderate' 15 m/s winds
at 1/3 standard flank
7.4 11.2 11.6 heading E
7.3 11.2 10.4
8.1 13.0 12.7 heading S
8.1 11.8 11.2
Tambor class in 'severe 15 m/s winds
6.3 9.3 9.4 heading E
6.2 9.3 9.3
6.3 9.4 8.7 heading S
6.4 8.2 7.6

These figures are substantially the same as before (in the case of severe weather), but eliminate the tendency of the S-class to “get stuck” in heavy waves. It is interesting to note that there is little, if any, speed advantage of flank speed over standard, in heavy seas.

I realize, that people who play at a very fast pace, will not like this sort of thing, but given the limitations inherent in the game, I feel it is the best option within reach.

- TorpX

TorpX

03-20-15, 08:21 PM

Hertog asked a good question and I made a lengthy reply, so I'll copy it to this thread so in case people were wondering about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HertogJan http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2298263#post2298263)
TorpX, got yet another question for you.

I've tested IPS with ISP 2.x_SW_Patch for TMO and I noticed the waves are moving at a slower rate, almost like it's in slowmotion? :06:

Is there a reason you slowed the sea movement (waves) down by 'half?'... Tested 2xTC and it feels (at least to me) like its back to a more realistic movement.

Will changing it back break anything?

I used a slower sea speed, because the original (RFB?) seemed too fast. I looked like I was watching a toy boat in a bathtub to me. Keep in mind, the waves and ships are supposed to be of large dimensions.

Of course, you can experiment as much as you want, but I don't really recommend it; I have no idea what effect it will have on the sea-keeping aspects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HertogJan http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2298272#post2298272)
One question remains, why did you change that setting, does it influence your Mod in any way besides wave speed?
I put in a lot of time fiddling with the waves to get them so they exercise a realistic influence over the boats; meaning they will slow you down when they get rough. Eye-candy considerations were secondary. There are a number of subtle aspects to all that. Suffice it to say here, that there are limits as to what I could accomplish. If the waves are too big, fast or whatever, you can end up with a S-class boat being unable to move in 15 m/s winds - not a desirable situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HertogJan http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2298391#post2298391)

Anyhow... the storm continued for most of the day and night, luckily for me after some 24h rain and fog lifted but the winds kept banging my sub all the way to Davao which was still 120Nm due North (weather raged for 183Nm in all) as I had seen enough of what this weather is like I wanted to test something. Would Ctrl-N work and do what normally happens... I know it's cheating and I normally don't do this when I am in my patrol zone or in enemy territory but I wanted to see if it did something.

Every time I've tried the 'Ctrl-N' thing, all that happens is the clouds skip a beat, and the weather looks the same. The navigator says the wind is 0 m/s, but the waves are as violent as before. What does it do for you?

The issue of 15 m/s 'storms' (of long duration), is why I came out with the latest patch. (I hope you read the docs, and didn't just jam in into the mods folder?)

***

TorpX

03-20-15, 09:34 PM

DerekB 525 had a problem where his Balao-class sub wouldn't get above 14 kn. at flank speed. This in TMO.

Since it is a technical issue, I'll post my findings here.

I ran a simple mission with RFB and ISP, first with the S-18, then with the Balao. Then I disabled the ISP and repeated with the Balao just to see the difference. The Ef entries with a '*' are for GQ.
[See the attached file below.]

The S-class seemed to reach full speed until the efficiency dropped to around 50% or so. The Balao seemed to require about 85% or so; and suffered badly if the Ef fell below 50 or 60%. It shows that GQ, per se, isn't what is required, but rather a certain level of efficiency. Fatigue is an important factor here, but not the only one. Now and then I saw the Ef jump to 100%, without GQ being in force. It wasn't obvious why, but I'm guessing leadership factors come into play. It isn't clear why such a big difference between the S-class and Balao.

It is interesting to note, that with RFB alone, compartment Ef doesn't matter a wit; the boat can go full speed until the last man falls asleep!

I may have "dumbed down" the engine room crews a bit too much. They seemed ok in tests, but then this sort of thing is hard to test objectively, as every crew starts a mission fresh as a daisy. They only become fatigued over time. My thinking was that it made more sense with you to start with a poor crew, so you would have to build them up some.

I looked into the subs' *.upc files, to check if maybe I messed up the numbers. The numbers were as intended. I believe the theory behind the EffciencyDenominator is that it was set to be equal to the number of men in a shift of that compartment. For the EffciencyDenominatorBS the number is larger, as every man is then on duty. I reduced the value for the Balao by 1, and this gave a significant boost to the Ef in the game.

So, if your engine room crew seems hopelessly inadequate, I would recommend one of these options:

Invest in some better/more experienced sailors (they do make a difference now).
Disable ISP, go in and change your sub's *.upc file. Reduce the EffciencyDenominator by 1, and save it. Keep an unaltered copy as backup. Re-enable ISP. (I didn't try this while at sea, in mid career.)

In any case, it might be wise to monitor your crew's fatigue and Ef levels, as it clearly has an impact with ISP. (It makes me wonder about the other compartments).

HertogJan

03-21-15, 04:44 AM

There's one think I didn't mention yesterday and that is the repeated "current depth 20 feet" sound speech by the ?XO?
When in a storm this really starts to irritate me.. The guy goes like this every time the sub goes slightly under or at 20ft:
Current depth 20f, Current... Current depth t.... Cur.... Current d... Current depth 20f. and so on, luckily it stops at higher TC but its spamming the chatbox and can't read any course change, contact report and whatnots.

Running Improved Stock Environment_v2 over your Mod.

About the voice issue, looking through the files would suggest a combination of four separate files "Current Depth", "2", "0" and "feet". If so, removing it would be impossible :/\\!!
Altho, it doesn't make sens as it says "twenty feet" and not "two - zero feet". :-?

TorpX

03-22-15, 09:39 PM

I haven't tried to disable the "current depth 20 feet" voice. If someone is able to do this, please post it here.

Usually, I am going at 32x, so it is not as annoying.

TorpX

03-27-15, 02:05 AM

I've been asked about how to get the Gato to decks awash with ISP.

I don't really use decks awash; the RL S-boats couldn't do it, and that's the only thing I've played since developing ISP.

Here is my idea as to how best to do decks awash:

In the gato.cfg file, edit the radar depth value to want you want for 'decks awash'. The game subs don't seem to like going directly from 14' to 24' or such. So, from the surface, order periscope depth, and after you are down to 40 or so feet, then order 'radar depth', and hopefully, your crew will be able to accomplish this. This may take a little experimentation.

I have done this sort of thing in order to go to a shallower than normal p/d in a S-boat.

TorpX

06-11-15, 09:54 PM

I have been doing a little work for a possible future version of ISP.

#1.
Does anyone know about the differences between SH3 and SH4 wave mechanics? I am thinking specifically about how the waves in SH3 continue to exert some influence on a sub when it is below the surface. I would certainly like to incorporate this kind of thing, if possible. So far, I haven't been able to reproduce it.

#2.
Does anyone have a good understanding of the 'float controllers' (in *.val files)?

Hitman

06-12-15, 04:44 AM

I can't provide any specific info on that, but *if* the devs didn't remove code from SH3 when they did Sh4, it might be related to sub displacement. The smaller Type II Uboats clearly rocked more around than the Type IXs, so I would first try setting a much lower submarine displacement and see if that produces a result or not. Once you know if the effect is still there, you can try to see if it can be configured elsewhere :hmmm:

TorpX

06-12-15, 09:01 PM

I played around with the float controller setting the float height to different values, positive and negative. I didn't notice anything, until at a level of 5.0, I happened to see 'bow splash' or whatever spray up high in front of the boat, like an invisible pixie was scattering fairy dust over my sub.

I have concluded this doesn't do anything useful. Really, I don't see why they bothered; there is still bow splash at the bow, even when I deleted the element. There are so many eye-candy factors in this game. If they had put an equal effort into the physics, it would be a much better sim. :nope:

With the scene.dat file, I took the stock SH3 file and put it in the SH4 game. Also, adjusted the waves attenuation value to 0.03, as in the SH3 file. The sub doesn't behave the same, though. In SH4, rolling and pitching stops somewhere between 26 and 30 ft. In. SH3, there is significant movement at periscope depth, and still a little at 25m. I am wondering if Ubi changed this deliberately, or if it is another thing that was accidently broken.

I may try your suggestion about the displacement; I'm not getting anywhere on my present course.

granite00

06-15-15, 05:35 PM

For TorpX and SilentPrey,

First, thank you for all the research and work you've put into this mod.

I just installed "Improved Ship Physics 2.6_TMO_RSRDC_OTC". I must use OTC ratio 5:4 and the ocean looked awful (it was like a shiny blue plastic; nothing at all like the ocean prior to ISP).

My mods are in this order:
Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157
1_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
1_TMO_25_small_patch
RSRDC_TMO_V502
RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1
1.5_Optical Targeting Correction 031312 for RSRDCv502
1.5_OTC for 5 to 4 Aspect Ratio RSRDCv502
Improved Ship Physics 2.6_TMO_RSRDC_OTC
Easier AI for TMO 2.5 by Orpheus

Has anyone reported a problem with OTC 5:4 aspect? Perhaps my installation order is wrong?

fitzcarraldo

06-15-15, 07:30 PM

granite00

06-15-15, 09:37 PM

TorpX warned you would lose stormy seas and sea-keeping effects if you removed the scene.dat file. How did that work out for you?

If I chose to do that, do I merely delete the scene.dat file from the Mods\ISP 2.6 directory?

fitzcarraldo

06-15-15, 10:03 PM

Just delete scene.dat. Of course you don't have the stormy seas effect but that effect looks horrendous in my installation. Do you like it with those deforming waves and mountains of water? All works fine in my installation without scene.dat.

Regards.

Fitzcarraldo :salute:

granite00

06-15-15, 10:52 PM

You're right, the water doesn't look good in my installation, so I removed ISP at this point. I'm fairly new to the game and am still playing with mods. I haven't tried RFB yet, but may give it a go to compare it with TMO. Once that decision is made, smaller mod choices can be made.

SilentPrey

06-16-15, 04:25 AM

granite00,

Interesting. The way the ocean looked didn't bother me (probably because EVERYTHING looks better than the periscope view in Dangerous Waters :arrgh!:) and I wanted to stay as close as I could to TorpX's original intent so I left the weather the way he set it.

Your installation order looks right. If you liked the way the TMO sea looked (and acted) then just follow fitzcarraldo's advice and delete scene.dat. To clarify: Disable ISP in JSGME first, then go into MODS\Improved Ship Physics 2.6_TMO_RSRDC_OTC\Data and delete scene.dat, then reenable with JSGME.

Have fun!

fitzcarraldo

06-16-15, 06:21 AM

Hitman

06-16-15, 08:59 AM

I took the stock SH3 file and put it in the SH4 game. Also, adjusted the waves attenuation value to 0.03, as in the SH3 file. The sub doesn't behave the same, though.

Not sure if I understand that. Did the sub in SH4 behave differently after swapping the scene.dat for the SH3 one? Or didn't that produce any changes at all?

TorpX

06-17-15, 12:07 AM

Not sure if I understand that. Did the sub in SH4 behave differently after swapping the scene.dat for the SH3 one? Or didn't that produce any changes at all? Well, the stock scene.dat file from SH3 has smaller waves than what I usually use. The main point of interest is that in SH3 a sub will pitch and roll as you submerge, even to periscope depth or deeper. I took a type VIIb down to 25 or 30 m and there was still a little movement. I couldn't go deeper as the water was shallow. With the same scene.dat file in SH4 (using a S-18) the boat ceases to pitch or roll, very soon after you dive. It seems to stop between 26 and 30 ft., and after that, it is like being on rails. This is true, even when the waves are very large, and the shears/tower are periodically exposed - very unrealistic.

I briefly looked at the sh3 type VIIb .sim file just to see if there was anything odd or unique about it. Didn't see anything special. Unless there is a special node in the *.dat files that controls pitching and rolling in waves, I don't see any hope of reproducing this. It seems odd that Ubi would eliminate a realistic feature that worked well in a previous version, but apparently they did. :06:

***

Does anyone know how to add boxes/slots in the crew page?

I wanted to add a few spaces in Hogan's alley. I put in the slots in the *.upc file, but they didn't show up in the game. I assume something else needs to be done to actually create the additional spaces, but have no idea what.

RFB has 3 spaces, which is just enough. I wanted to expand the use of this compartment, so one could pull certain men off duty, when at GQ for a long period, so you would have at least a few men who were rested.

SilentPrey

06-17-15, 12:50 AM

Well, the stock scene.dat file from SH3 has smaller waves than what I usually use. The main point of interest is that in SH3 a sub will pitch and roll as you submerge, even to periscope depth or deeper. I took a type VIIb down to 25 or 30 m and there was still a little movement. I couldn't go deeper as the water was shallow. With the same scene.dat file in SH4 (using a S-18) the boat ceases to pitch or roll, very soon after you dive. It seems to stop between 26 and 30 ft., and after that, it is like being on rails. This is true, even when the waves are very large, and the shears/tower are periodically exposed - very unrealistic.

It sounds like Ubi didn't convert from metric to imperial and just used 25-30 for both when setting max depth for wave effect. In meters it's right, in feet it's far too shallow.

TorpX

06-17-15, 01:01 AM

No, that's not it.

In sh3 the wave influence seems to gradually lessen. In sh4 it just stops below the surface. The difference is dramatic.

I've tried changing many factors to improve it, but it seems to be a hard coded thing.

Btw, in SHCE it worked quite well too. I remember if you had to make a high speed sprint underwater, in rough seas, in SHCE you had to go down to 90 or 100 ft. move fast, then come up to p/s depth to make an observation. Of course, SHCE was a simpler game; there were only 3 sea-states; but at least they got them right.

Hitman

06-17-15, 10:30 AM

With the same scene.dat file in SH4 (using a S-18) the boat ceases to pitch or roll, very soon after you dive. It seems to stop between 26 and 30 ft., and after that, it is like being on rails. This is true, even when the waves are very large, and the shears/tower are periodically exposed - very unrealistic.

Ah I see. So the SH3 scene.dat did not work. I don't think it is there, in any case, as it just controls what the sea looks like, but not how the units react to it. Must be elsewhere. Have you checked if the UBoats in Operation Monsoon also stop rocking at peri depth? If the parameters in them were directly copied over and they stop rocking then it's clearly something in the Unit's configuration and the scope of your search is much narrower. If not, then it's probably hardcoded and lost in the transition to SH4, as you suggest.

Does anyone know how to add boxes/slots in the crew page?

That must be in the menu-ini, which controls what you see in the GUI, including slots in the sub crew management screen. You will have both to create the graphical slot and to tell the game what it is, should easy by just copying the entries of an existing slot. Placing it might be a bit of trial and error, though.

You can compare the RFB menu-ini with the stock one to see where it was added.

aanker

06-17-15, 01:39 PM

...... then it's probably hardcoded and lost in the transition to SH4, as you suggest.

Does anyone know how to add boxes/slots in the crew page?

That must be in the menu-ini, which controls what you see in the GUI, including slots in the sub crew management screen. You will have both to create the graphical slot and to tell the game what it is, should easy by just copying the entries of an existing slot. Placing it might be a bit of trial and error, though.

You can compare the RFB menu-ini with the stock one to see where it was added.
If you just want boxes, here is Crew Berthing. For example, to add Crew Berthing to the NARWHAL crew screen, this worked:

\Data\Submarine\NSS_Narwhal\NSS_Narwhal.upc

[UserPlayerUnit 1.Compartment 6] <----- need to insert and change numbers for 7, 8, etc
CompartmentType= 2
StatusActive= No
ID= GatoCrewBerthing <----------------------------- points to valid ID
NameDisplayable= Crew Quarters
Type=NULL
FunctionalType= SensorsRoom
MechanicalCoef= 0 ;0..1
ElectricsCoef= 0 ;0..1
GunsCoef= 0 ;0..1
WatchmanCoef= 0 ;0..1
WatchStandingCoef= 0.048
MaintenanceCoef= 0.0144
RepairsCoef= 0.072
ReloadingweaponCoef= 0.072
SleepCoef= -0.12
LeadersSlots=0
CrewMembersSlots= 10 <------------------------------- 10 boxes
EffciencyDenominator=5
EffciencyDenominatorBS=5
Hitpoints=200
CrewExposure=0.075
EquipmentsExposure=0.1
WeaponsExposure=0.1
ExternalDamageZoneTypeID3D= -1
DamageDescription1= NULL, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, No Damage, 0, 0, NULL, 0, 0, 0

------- Toward bottom:
[UserPlayerUnit 1.FunctionalSubsystem 38] <----- may need to change number
ID= CrewBerthing
NameDisplayable= Crew Quarters
FunctionalType= CrewMembersGrouping
IDLinkFunctionalSubsystemSlots= CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC1, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC2, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC3, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC4, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC5, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC6, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC7, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC8, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC9, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC10, 0

-----------

\Data\Submarine\NSS_Narwhal\NSS_Narwhal.upc

It adds a Crew Berthing section which serves no purpose as in RFB, but does provide extra space for sorting crew and a convenient place to put deceased crewmen until reaching Port if something terrible happens while on patrol. (Their loved ones will appreciate it too)

Unlike Damage Control there is no Leader.
------

Maybe there can't be more than 12? S-42 has 12, with 3 leaders and 9 crew. Gato has - 0 leaders and 12 crew. May need to experiment.

If this is not what you want/need, I'll delete it so it doesn't clog this topic.

TorpX

06-17-15, 11:18 PM

Ah I see. So the SH3 scene.dat did not work. I don't think it is there, in any case, as it just controls what the sea looks like, but not how the units react to it. Must be elsewhere. Have you checked if the UBoats in Operation Monsoon also stop rocking at peri depth? If the parameters in them were directly copied over and they stop rocking then it's clearly something in the Unit's configuration and the scope of your search is much narrower. If not, then it's probably hardcoded and lost in the transition to SH4, as you suggest.

I hadn't thought to try this. Sometime I'll give it a go.

If you just want boxes, here is Crew Berthing. For example, to add Crew Berthing to the NARWHAL crew screen, this worked:

------- Toward bottom:
[UserPlayerUnit 1.FunctionalSubsystem 38] <----- may need to change number
ID= CrewBerthing
NameDisplayable= Crew Quarters
FunctionalType= CrewMembersGrouping
IDLinkFunctionalSubsystemSlots= CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC1, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC2, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC3, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC4, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC5, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC6, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC7, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC8, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC9, 0,CrewMemberSlot_BerthingC10, 0

-----------

Yes, that is the part I forgot.

I played around with the sleep coefficient and a few of the others. I can't make the men sleep more, but I can make the sleep more refreshing (if that is helpful). I could make the 'maintenance' duty reduce fatigue like sleep, but there is a drawback, as they will get to the point of having negative fatigue, if left in there too long. I'll have to think about this. I would like to give the player the option of being able to rest a few of the men, even while at GQ. This could be helpful in a long engagement. I guess it is a minor point, though.

TorpX

08-22-15, 10:24 PM

There have been comments recently to the effect that ISP, and other physics mods are harmful to convoy integrity. I decided to test this notion, and see if there is anything to be learned.

First, I created a mission for the purpose. I put together a 12 ship merchant convoy. The convoy 'leader' is a large minelayer (not actually a merchant), the other 11 are an assortment. No real small or large ships. The biggest is a large old liner. I put a lot of 'old' ships in it, the idea being these might have more trouble keeping up. All the merchants have novice crews, all the DD's normal crews.

Additionally, there are 4 escorts, one ahead, one on either beam, and one astern. The rear escort is a small minesweeper, all the others are DD's.

The arrangement is 3 columns of 4 ships. There is about 500 yds. in between ships in a column, and about 1,000 yds. between columns. The escorts were placed about 3,000 yds. outside the convoy, but wonder around a lot, so I'm not sure it matters where we place them.

I had them follow a large rectangle, but instead of having them make 90° turns at the corners, I used two 45° turns spaced about 5 nm apart. I have doubts as to their ability to make sharp, or frequent turns. The weather is a little choppy, with 6 m/s wind. The mission starts at 0800.

Test #1

The date is Nov. 7, 1941, so the USN and IJN are still on speaking terms. I am using RFB and RSRDC with the required patches. I believe that these mods use 'stock' physics, and you would get the same results in stock, but I wanted to make sure the ships were the same.

The convoy starts out in good order and apart from one of the DD's almost smacking into me, not much happens. I do notice the Wakatake and Matsuki DD's look somewhat unstable, rolling more than they should. Could be a problem in heavy weather.

I use 32x TC for most of the time, going to 1x to examine the ships from time to time. In the turns, I notice they use an odd technique. One ship, the medium old comp. fr. looses it's place twice, not clear why. It then tags along, at the rear of the column, until eventually finding it's way back to it's proper place.

In spite of these minor issues, the convoy ships keep station pretty well. I can't follow them after dark very well, but when I spot them again, they look to be in good formation. My boat actually collides with one in TC, and makes a lot of nasty racket. I threw engines in reverse and the merchant gets back to the convoy. We have no damage and apparently they don't either.

Test #2

Same set up as above. In this one I pull ahead out of sight, submerge and ambush convoy with a salvo of 4 torpedoes. This with auto-targeting. Range was about 8,000 yds. and I used 1/2° offset angle. I aim at two ships in the far column, from long range (i.e. low speed). One of the first two hit, the others miss. The convoy looks disordered for a while, but goes on, intact. The one ship sinks.

After a short time, I fire another volley of 4, at two other ships. Two ships are hit (1 hit apiece), but not the ones I targeted. One sinks quickly, the other struggles on for 30 min. or so, before it too, sinks. The convoy stayed together.

The oddest part was how little the DD's attempted to interfere. One DD (at front) worked it's way back through the convoy, as if it was trying to locate a sub inside the convoy. However, there were no ship collisions. I couldn't follow the evasions of the individual ships, but it was obvious they detected the torps and attempted to evade.

Tomorrow, I'll repeat the tests with ISP.

TorpX

08-24-15, 01:15 AM

Test #3

This is like #1, but with ISP.

For the most part, the convoy is ok. The Wakatake DD goes back into the convoy, tries to move in between ships in the middle column, it doesn't time the move well, and has to back to keep from hitting. This happened twice, until finally at the rear of the convoy it turns into the space between the next 2 columns.

One ship, the med. old comp. freighter looses it's place at the second turn. It seems like ships have a chance to 'loose their place' at a turn. When they do they meander around, and will usually get back sooner or later. This happened without ISP as well.

Test #4

Same as test #3.

Here I make a long range torpedo attack, like in #2.

1 torp hits and convoy is highly disrupted. Ship sinks. It seemed still shaky after 1 hr. and was almost back in good order after 1.5 hrs.

Test #5

Using only RFB and RSRDC.

I start submerged and ambush convoy with 4 torps.

I target minelayer (which is convoy leader). Two hit and it sinks promptly. Convoy is very disordered. After 1/2 hr. it looks better, but one ship is far outside convoy. After 2 hrs., it is in a good state, but one ship still not in the right place. There seems to be a certain individual factor involved. Some ships seem to become 'confused' either in a turn or in an attack.

Test #6

Same as #5, but with ISP.

Of 4 torps, one hits and sinks minelayer.

There is much disruption, but convoy is more or less reformed after 1/2 hr. The large old passenger is way out in front about 3,000 yds. At first I thought this was just panic or bad seamanship. On closer examination, I realize the Hog Island is in it's place. It seems that places can change after an attack and two ships will be jockeying for a position in convoy. This may be a bug in AI. No way to know for sure. Overall, the convoy recovered well, within a half hour.

Conclusions:

In normal operation (no attack), I don't see any difference with ISP and 'normal' mods. Certainly, either way they keep station well. Turns are somewhat of a challenge, but for the most part they do ok. Sometimes, ships will loose their place, but I don't see it as a major problem, and, in any case, it happens either way.

In an attack, a high level of disruption is likely, with or without a physics mod. I can't say if it takes longer for them to recover with ISP or not. On the basis of these few tests, it seems like it's matter of chance. In no case did a convoy break up, but if one is attacked, it seems likely they will continue with a somewhat altered organization.

I don't see any reason for SH4 players to forgo a good physics mod, think that ISP or any other mod is going to harm convoys. Convoys will react to threats and become disrupted either way.

I made a bunch of screen shots, but frankly, they don't really tell any more than what I can say here. Maybe I'll post a few later. Possibly, a denser convoy would have some real trouble (collisions and such), but I think that is something to be fixed on that end.

Admiral Halsey

08-24-15, 11:11 AM

Would it be possible to release a version of this without the changed weather effects? It's a good mod but I'm getting a bit tired of my sub plodding along at only 4 knots at flank during a storm.

Rockin Robbins

08-24-15, 01:22 PM

TorpX

08-24-15, 10:29 PM

Would it be possible to release a version of this without the changed weather effects? It's a good mod but I'm getting a bit tired of my sub plodding along at only 4 knots at flank during a storm.

Easily accomplished!

Just disable ISP, open it up, and take out the scene.dat file. All weather/wave changes are in that.

I hope people are using the ISP 2.x patch. If you install it and follow the instructions, you should have more bearable weather. Or, you can follow the above procedure, and have normal/vanilla weather.

A fine test! Convoy disruption after attack looks like it's hard coded then, as stock convoys are disrupted for the same amount of time. Personally, none of the convoy behaviors in any of the physics mods would keep me from using one. I'm using one now with GFO and play has been really good with it.

I'll get back to my TMO game and try yours out next. Good show!

Thank-you.

Typical convoys may be crammed into a smaller space than the one I crafted. This could make for messier attacks, but I'll leave that to others to test or discover.

I was going to do a naval TF, but I figure if a merchant convoy can hold together, a TF should do at least as well.

Btw, the spacing I used was diagramed in Roscoe's U.S. Destroyer Operations of WWII. I consider it to have worked well.

************************************************** ******

I did notice what seemed odd about the convoy turning style/method, that is worth mentioning. It could be useful to anyone who is changing or developing a SH campaign. This occurred with or without ISP.

We might assume the convoys ships in a column would turn simultaneously, but they didn't do that.

We might think the lead ship in a column would turn, and the following ships would simply turn the same way, as they reached that point in space, where the first turned. They didn't do that either.

What happens is that the first in column will turn, and the following ships will turn to different angles, in such a way that the 'tail' of the convoy will swing out. This makes for a jumbled appearance, if one views it while it is in process. Below is my drawing of what it looks like:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/Misc/convoy%20turns_zps8lm6zie0.png

Looking at the left column (the inside column), one can see the leading ship at the new course, the 2nd at a lesser angle, the 3rd and 4th actually turning in the opposite direction! It looks messy, yet seems to get the job done. I think the inside column tends to be jumbled more than the others. (If the ships are jammed very tight into the convoy, it could lead to difficulties.)

If anybody knows about convoy procedures, and can shed some light on this, don't hesitate to help us out.

Crannogman

08-24-15, 10:57 PM

Seems a pretty rudimentary system - the formation geometry is based on the lead ship, and changes immediately when that ship turns. Thus, ina longer formation, the lead ship's turn to the left means the column now stretches off the right.
I remember a similar pattern from Destroyer Command; I would often take my squadron through a series of formations (column, echelon, column/abreast) to keep the individual ships in the position I wanted while turning. I guess the devs never saw a reason to mess with it.

Admiral Halsey

08-25-15, 12:39 PM

Snip

Thanks didn't know it was that easy and yes i'm using the patch as well. I use it with TMO so the weather is already more weathery then stock.

Captain Dave

08-25-15, 06:13 PM

This looks like the Hook and Ladder Firetruck turn. The guy steering the rear wheels has to turn opposite of the front to end up in the same lane. While none of the ships are connected, the principle looks the same.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/TorpX/Misc/convoy%20turns_zps8lm6zie0.png

TorpX

08-25-15, 09:53 PM

I remember a similar pattern from Destroyer Command; I would often take my squadron through a series of formations (column, echelon, column/abreast) to keep the individual ships in the position I wanted while turning. I guess the devs never saw a reason to mess with it.

Yeah, makes sense.

This looks like the Hook and Ladder Firetruck turn. The guy steering the rear wheels has to turn opposite of the front to end up in the same lane. While none of the ships are connected, the principle looks the same.

Ah, that's an interesting comparison.

Johnners

09-01-15, 01:31 PM

TorpX

09-02-15, 01:45 AM

Hi Torpex, and thanks for your great mod.

I hope I'm not asking a dumb question, but after a prolonged period of running submerged and returning to the surface, I went to move the "battery expert" to an other compartment while the battery recharged (as per instructions), only to find him apparently sleeping (little z's above his icon) while the rest of his watch were still active. Is this usual and does he still need to be moved, our should I have him keelhauled for slacking off???

No, not a dumb question.

It is normal for him to have a different sleep cycle, since you have to move him around, and this can interrupt his sleeping. You should still move him out of the engines compartment; the game is made so 'passive' abilities are always on, even if the crewman is sleeping.

As your patrol continues, you will notice crew sleeping patterns change as their fatigue levels will differ.

Johnners

09-02-15, 05:09 AM

Thanks for the reply TorpX and again for the great mod :)

TorpX

09-13-15, 09:33 PM

A warning to those SH4 players, who still like to think of the game as a reasonably faithful submarine simulation. The following information may damage their enjoyment of the game. (It did mine.)

I was working on adjusting the crew slots of the different classes of boats to get a better/different level of efficiency, when I decided to do some testing of how the boats work with reduced crew levels.

As a first experiment, I put most of the duty shift into Hogan's Alley, so they would be out of the picture. Then, I proceeded to order a number of typical actions: diving, turning, speed changes, torpedo launches, etc.

I found, to my disgust, most of these actions do not require the compartments to be manned at all.

There were a couple of exceptions. Engine operation requires crew in that compartment (especially with ISP), Torpedo loading requires crew in the torpedo room, but launching does not. Of course, we can both fire and load the deck gun, without crew. Diving and surfacing (usually thought of as a complicated and demanding task), is accomplished as easily without the crew, as with them.

I did not try to test damage repair, as I can't easily damage the boat in a controlled manner. Frankly, I wasn't all that eager to know, at that point.

Most of the this green bar stuff seems to be monkey points. Why, for Pete's sake, would Ubi put in all this fussbudget stuff with efficiency levels, crew abilities, and fatigue, when it hardly matters?

I suppose it's anyone's guess.

I hoped maybe that there was a simple problem in the files that could be changed to fix this. I spent quite a few hours trying to re-engineer the *.upc files to force the game to take account of the crew staffing, all to no avail.

I might not have even posted this, but there is always the chance someone who has a good understanding of computers/software can fix this in the future.

I made the initial tests with RFB +... + ISP. To check to make sure it was not an ISP issue, I repeated the test with RFB alone, and then with stock. Results were the same.

ColonelSandersLite

09-14-15, 12:47 PM

Honestly, that doesn't really bother me at all.

Crew efficiency effects:
sensors (definitely)
reload rates (definitely)
damage control (pretty sure)
gun accuracy (maybe, not really sure tbh)

While theoretically possible to encounter the situation you mention, the only time I don't have any crew in an area is my guns when I don't need them. Technically, you don't need crew in them to use them yourself, but reload rates are atrocious then so that's a kinda pointless distinction. Yes, it's possible to strip a lot of crew out of the sub at port but why would you even actually do that?

On paper, it's possible to have enough casualties that this can be a serious problem. In practice, I doubt it's really possible to survive that anyways.

TorpX

10-30-15, 11:31 PM

I've been fiddling around with the torpedo files, in the course of releasing AutoTarg. I found I can add 2 modes of failure to a torpedo:

1. a torpedo can 'sink', as in a cold run. The torp keeps going deeper and deeper, until it hits bottom and explodes.

2. a torp can 'porpoise' and run on the surface. Not sure if enemy ships would see a surface runner any easier or not.

Also, I looked into the RFB 2.0 patch file, and it seems that the dud rate is on the high side. Can anyone who plays a lot of RFB shed some light on this? Do you have a very high rate of duds?

I am thinking of either doing a separate torpedo mod, or a new version of ISP with some changes here.

swdw

11-08-15, 10:33 PM

2.0 patch file, and it seems that the dud rate is on the high side. Can anyone who plays a lot of RFB shed some light on this? Do you have a very high rate of duds?

I am thinking of either doing a separate torpedo mod, or a new version of ISP with some changes here.

Been gone a while. Couldn't run SH4 for 2 years. Have now built a WinXP game machine and hope I can get back to playing again. I led the RFB mod team until turning it over to Luke FF.
Now onto some stuff you've written about.

Dud rate early in the war is historically accurate. I did a bunch of research on this before spending almost a month to get the torps tweaked in to match patrol reports. If no one tweaked the files after I quit working on it, then if you look closer at the files, you'll see you're dud rate is less at 45 degrees or greater, which is also historically accurate. You'll also see the dud rate lessen if you shoot them at slow speed. Also historically accurate.

If they got tweaked after my mods, I can't answer for that.

Going back to an older post on the sub physics. The acceleration, turning radius, and other parameters were pretty close to accurate. We could not make them dead on due to the fact some of the settings also affected the dive rate too much. (drag being one of them)

Same thing with surface ships.

One thing to keep in mind. The physics engine does not take into account different propeller profiles. Besides the number of blades, the surface area and twist also affect the thrust. Not modeled accurately in the game. SO you often have to go with unrealistic numbers for HP and other parameters in order to get more realistic performance.

I exchanged a number of e-mails with the developers and learned what the limits of the engine were. Then I had to work around them. I didn't make it through all of the surface ships at the time. By the end of it I probably had a better understanding of the physics engine when it came to ship performance than the developers.

As for the height of the subs in the water. Prior to the U-boat mission release the subs sat WAY too high on the surface. If you can find my original post, as this was one of the first mods I did, then you can see the difference. When you start fussing with the height in the water, it can also affect dive rate, acceleration and turning radius. Requires a lot of testing to get right.

When ubisoft released the U-boat mission add on, my understanding is they used the RFB values to get the subs to ride correctly.

SO you know, when we were setting how the boats rode on the surface, we had 4 ex diesel boat sailors on the team as testers. We came up with a good all around height. The real boats ride lower with a full fuel load and then ride higher as they burn through fuel. There are other things including a full stores load that affect this. So we got feedback from the ex diesel boat testers and came up with a good compromise height.

TorpX

11-09-15, 10:11 PM

Been gone a while. Couldn't run SH4 for 2 years. Have now built a WinXP game machine and hope I can get back to playing again. I led the RFB mod team until turning it over to Luke FF.
Now onto some stuff you've written about.

Welcome back.

Going back to an older post on the sub physics. The acceleration, turning radius, and other parameters were pretty close to accurate. We could not make them dead on due to the fact some of the settings also affected the dive rate too much. (drag being one of them)

Well, I don't mean to be critical, I know you and the others in the RFB team had a huge task before you, but I had to do a lot of work on these things - acceleration and turning. Turning radii were ok, but the turning speeds were way too low. Acceleration was too fast. I was able to fix some of these things.

I exchanged a number of e-mails with the developers and learned what the limits of the engine were. Then I had to work around them. I didn't make it through all of the surface ships at the time. By the end of it I probably had a better understanding of the physics engine when it came to ship performance than the developers.
That's the problem. You, I, and anyone who has worked on the physics probably had a better understanding than the developers. I've come to the conclusion that they really weren't interested in the matter. There are too many problems for me to think otherwise.

There are things they could have easily corrected, if they had been paying attention.

Dud rate early in the war is historically accurate. I did a bunch of research on this before spending almost a month to get the torps tweaked in to match patrol reports. If no one tweaked the files after I quit working on it, then if you look closer at the files, you'll see you're dud rate is less at 45 degrees or greater, which is also historically accurate. You'll also see the dud rate lessen if you shoot them at slow speed. Also historically accurate.

If they got tweaked after my mods, I can't answer for that.

I understand that there was an effort to make them historically accurate, but afaik, there are no tests that state at A angle you get X% duds, and at B angle you get Y% duds, etc., etc.

Below are notes from the Torpedoes_US.sim file in the RFB
'patch'. The RFB 2.0 file is entirely different. In fact the dud
chances track in the opposite direction (i.e. large 85 chance at
large angle, going to small 10 chance at smallest angle).

[In the files, an angle of '0' means a perpendicular impact, 90
deg. would be a glancing hit. To be sure of this I had to verify it by experiment.]

1/1/1939 to 6/23/1943
dud chances

angle 72 to 90
chance 5.0

angle 54 to 72
chance 25.0

angle 36 to 54
chance 50.0

angle 18 to 36
chance 75.0

angle 0 to 18
chance 100.0

dud reduction speed 34.0
dud reduction rate 50.0

premature chances
waves 0.0 to 40.0
chance 10.0

6/24/1943 to 9/29/1943

same dud chances.....
no magnetic detonation or premature..

9/30/1943 to 12/31/45

angle 72 to 90
chance 1.0

angle 54 to 72
chance 2.0

angle 36 to 54
chance 2.5

angle 18 to 36
chance 3.5

angle 0 to 18
chance 5.0

same dud reduction speeds and rates...
no prematures...

First off, a 100% chance seems high by any standard. Second, the next period shows no improvement, when there should be one. Maybe the 100% chance of a dud is justified by Lockwood's drop tests(?), but ships were being sunk in this period, and later in the war, the sinkings improved, but not that dramatically.

From a gameplay standpoint, I dislike a 100% chance, as this is likely to cause players to just turn off duds altogether, or incorporate ahistorical tactics, and thus render the matter pointless.

Anyway, I want to thank you for your, and the others' contributions. Without the major mods, the game would be nearly unplayable.

- TorpX

swdw

11-10-15, 12:48 AM

I understand that there was an effort to make them historically accurate, but afaik, there are no tests that state at A angle you get X% duds, and at B angle you get Y% duds, etc., etc.
- TorpX
Someone changed the files after I turned it over. just from the numbers I can tell that wasn't my work. Like you, I tested it to make sure the numbers went in the right direction.

As for dud rate, here you go, from several sources.

1. Tests were carried out by COMSUBPAC's gunnery and torpedo officer, Art Taylor. Taylor, "Swede" Momsen, and others fired warshots into the cliffs of Kahoolawe, beginning 31 August. Additional trials, supervised by Taylor, dropped dummy warheads filled with sand from a cherry picker raised to a height of 90 feet (27 m), producing a 70% failure rate. A quick fix was to encourage "glancing" shots (which cut the number of duds in half),until a permanent solution could be found.

2. The torpedo controversy came to a head in July 1943 when the USS Tinosa received intelligence that a large Japanese tanker would pass
through her patrol area the next morning. They fired four torpedoes from 1,000 yards. The sound man could hear them hit, but no explosion resulted.
The skipper was about to cry and the XO and I said ‘Captain, this ship was tracking right on course with the speed and course we got it exactly right.’ He said ‘We will fire two more torpedoes at its stern and I will angle my periscope.’ We fired at it at 4,000 yards which is two miles with one miss and one that hit its stern and blew its stern up and it could not move again. Well, he sat there. We fired, over the next three to four hours, 12 more—one at a time. We fired one side; we would go round to the other side. Consternation and frustration was extreme. None of the 12 torpedoes exploded. The Americans were finally
chased away by Japanese ships sent to help the beleaguered tanker.

The Tinosa's Captain, Dan Daspit, saved his last torpedo as conclusive evidence that something was very wrong.

Early reports of torpedo action included some dud hits, heard as a dull clang. In a few instances, Mark 14s would strike a Japanese ship and lodge in its hull without exploding. The contact pistol appeared to be malfunctioning, though the conclusion was anything but clear until running depth and magnetic exploder problems were solved. Daspit's experience was exactly the sort of live-fire trial BuOrd had been prevented from doing in peacetime. It was now clear to all at Pearl Harbor the contact pistol was also defective. Ironically, a direct hit on the target at a 90 degree angle, as recommended in training, would result in a failure to detonate; the exploder only functioned when the torpedo impacted the target at an oblique angle.

3. Lockwood's men replaced the TNT in several warheads with cinder concrete and attached the normal contact mechanism. Test torpedoes were then dropped 90 feet along a wire suspended from a crane into an empty drydock where they landed squarely on steel plates. A direct, 90-degree hit produced a dud seven out of 10 times -- a 70 percent failure rate almost two years into the war. By adjusting the target plates to a 45-degree angle, the failure rate was cut in half. At a still greater angle, the exploders worked without fail. Lockwood immediately directed his boats at sea to launch their torpedoes from large, obtuse angles. They were ordered to improvise, to use anything but the textbook 90-degree track.

So yes there are actual numbers. 70% for a perfect shot and 35% at about 45 degrees. so you can take it from there but my understanding was that it was not a perfectly linear drop off and there was only a small change in the dud rate between 90 and 70 degrees.

BTW, there were some VERY pissed off people when it came to the dud rate when I released earlier versions of RFB. Maybe that's why it was changed for RFB 2 ??

As for the boats, wish I could compare the sub files I had compared to what was in the final release of RFB 2, but I no longer have them. There were complaints that I made the boats accelerate too slow, so maybe that was changed.

Also, when you talk about turning speed and radius of the boats, are you testing them both on the surface and underwater?

I did find a limiting factor when playing with the capital ships. If I got the acceleration, deceleration and coasting too realistic, the AI had collisions all the time. Because of this I wanted to go through and make an initial adjustment on all of them for consistency and then go back and make further adjustments. I think I only made it through about half the Japanese cruisers and battleships. The plan was not to include the changes until all the BB's and cruisers were completed. So the changes probably aren't in RFB

Never got a chance to do much with the destroyers. This was a frustrating issue as they act like a speedboat at times ;)

TorpX

11-10-15, 10:05 PM

Someone changed the files after I turned it over. just from the numbers I can tell that wasn't my work. Like you, I tested it to make sure the numbers went in the right direction.

I guess there have been so many revisions of RFB, it would be hard to know the where and why of all this. I played some with the earlier versions, but I didn't do any modding, and just accepted things 'as is' in those days.

3. Lockwood's men replaced the TNT in several warheads with cinder concrete and attached the normal contact mechanism. Test torpedoes were then dropped 90 feet along a wire suspended from a crane into an empty drydock where they landed squarely on steel plates. A direct, 90-degree hit produced a dud seven out of 10 times -- a 70 percent failure rate ...

So yes there are actual numbers. 70% for a perfect shot and 35% at about 45 degrees. so you can take it from there but my understanding was that it was not a perfectly linear drop off and there was only a small change in the dud rate between 90 and 70 degrees.

This is new to me, as I didn't know they tabulated specific percentages. This is very helpful. It does stand to reason there would not be a large difference from 90 to 70 deg., as the impact forces would not be much different.

Also, when you talk about turning speed and radius of the boats, are you testing them both on the surface and underwater?

Yes. Certainly!

The radii were good, but the speeds were very low. It is a stock issue, the game engine seems to want to slow everything down a lot in turns. I had to play with things a lot to get what I wanted. For general types of ships this may not be a big deal, but for a submerged sub, it's critical bad news.

I did find a limiting factor when playing with the capital ships. If I got the acceleration, deceleration and coasting too realistic, the AI had collisions all the time.

I haven't noticed a problem there. It might have been a stock issue. From what I've seen, whether one uses a physics mod or not, convoys will be jumbled to some extent when they are spooked, or attempt to evade, but I think they are ok, if they have adequate spacing to start with. I used 1000 yds. between columns, and 500 yds. between rows, and they did ok. If they were too tight, I could see how there might be problems. Maybe earlier versions of game didn't work as well?

Never got a chance to do much with the destroyers. This was a frustrating issue as they act like a speedboat at times

Fixed that.

None of the ships or subs had a value for the max force. Nobody knew what/how to use this. The value is supposed to be in tons of force, but I know it doesn't really work that way. They were all zeroed out. If a suitable value is used, the acceleration is much more realistic. That Ubisoft didn't do anything with this makes me think they miscoded something, and rather than track down the problem and fix it, they did the easiest thing, and simply zeroed everything out. This was ok for them, but left us with terrible physics.

Battery performance was awful. I'm sure you already knew that. Ducimus came up with a fix for that. That's important.

Anyway, I've done about as much as I know how to do for the game. The torpedo thing was kind of a chance thing I noticed after I had an earlier idea. I was surprised about the high dud rate. I had expected no more than 70%, or so.

There were some other things I tried to fix, but most of these ideas didn't work out.

TorpX

11-12-15, 12:45 AM

I am constructing a torpedo.sim file based on the 70% max. dud rate discussed below. I'm also using the two additional modes of failure I tested before.

I tried to add a 'bow splash' to the torpedo, so a porpoising torp would look better, but it didn't work. Either I didn't do it right, or it just won't work. I happened to get one in a test with a shot at a DD. As far as I can tell, they cannot be seen any easier than a normal torp. Too bad.

I had to do quite a few tests to get a feel for what wave level cutoff makes sense for the premature rate. In the file prematures are a function of 'wave height'.
I ran a mission with ISP's scene.dat and had the wind at 13 m/s level. I set the premature parameters to 0% premature chance, wave 0 to 20, 100% chance waves 20 to 1000. None
exploded.

Then tried 0%, waves 0 to 10, 100% waves 10 to 1000. All 6 exploded, including one surface runner.

Set divide at 0 to 15 and 15 to 1000, got mixed results; 9 exploded, 15 completed run at high speed. Depth setting errors normal for mk 14; some I set shallow, some default 10 ft. I didn't see any difference. I had expected all or none would premature, since I had it at 100% chance. It isn't clear how the game does the mechanics for this. Without tabulating any figures, it seems most prematures occur soon after arming. If they can make it through the first half of their run, they usually will complete it.

Set divide at 12; 16/16 exploded.

Set divide at 13; 15/24 exploded. Using the same parameters in a mission with 11 m/s wind, 15/16 completed runs (I believe one sank as there was no surface explosion). With these parameters in 15 m/s wind, 12/12 exploded. I fired 4 with M.I. feature turned off; none exploded.

From these tests, I would consider a high waves cutoff point of 12 or 13 to work well (with my scene.dat file).

Note that although the file structure seems to imply prematures are possible with contact exploders, this has never happened in my tests. Since prematures historically were associated with the magnetic pistol, this is ok, but I thought I would test to find out for sure. Different depth settings didn't seem to affect chance, as far as I could tell, but I didn't do systematic tests for this. Ideally, deeper torps would premature less often. I mostly used default depth, with a few salvos at min depth.

Finally, I tried changing the torpedo wake in the *.sim file to see if I could make them harder to see. I initially made the wake narrower, and offset it back 25m. It is easy to see the difference, but ships detect them the same. I made the length zero, thus rendering the wake invisible (to us), but a DD will evade just the same.

TorpX

11-21-15, 09:37 PM

I'm trying to finish the next version of ISP. I, perhaps foolishly, decided to take a look at the aircraft.

I put together a mission with flights of Japanese planes flying in to attack vulnerable almost defenseless American ships. Oddly enough, the IJ pilots can't seem to sink them. (This is especially odd, as they have sunk me more than once.)

The more I see, the more flaws I spot. I haven't really started changing them, so far; I just want to establish a base line of performance.

Two glaring flaws as I see it:

The Bettys dive and climb like they're driven by over-caffeinated fighter pilots. I saw one dive at an angle, at least as steep as a Val would make, then pull out abruptly, make a vertical climb, until he stalled. This isn't dangerous in the game, as he recovered very quickly, and went on his way. :doh:

Perhaps worse, is the fact that I cannot get the Kates to make a successful torpedo attack. I initially had them come in at a few thousand feet, assuming they would glide down to release the torps. HA! They just drop them from cruising altitude, so they explode at impact. Then I had them scripted to come in at low altitude, looks better, but the torps still exploded a moment after going in the water.

I looked at the Air_Torpedo_JP.sim file, and found it has no defined arming distance, (or much else). I put in a 20m arming value, then a 50m value, but they blow up just the same. I also reduced the speed of the Kates'. Nothing seems to work here. I might also point out, they drop the torps so that they hit very close to the target ship. Sometimes they [I]do hit them. As it stands now, they are, in effect, bombs, and nothing more.

If anybody has scripted, or witnessed SH4 air attacks, and can shed some light on this, please enlighten me. I was under the impression that 'air torpedoes' were supposed to work, as advertised.

CapnScurvy

11-23-15, 05:31 PM

I'm trying to finish the next version of ISP. I, perhaps foolishly, decided to take a look at the aircraft.......

Two glaring flaws as I see it:
[I'm using the RFB+RSRDC set up.].......

TorpX, you may have hit upon the reason for your trouble with those last two sentences, and didn't even know it. :88)

RSRDC introduces the Air_Torpedo_JP weapon to the game. It's not a stock weapon, neither does RFB add it. I wouldn't want to say for sure what the problem is with the weapon, but unless you want to re engineer Lurkers mod I'd count it out from any tests with aircraft. As a matter of fact I'd stay away from RFB too, and do any tests strictly with the stock game aircraft. Work with what you know works, before looking for trouble with someones else's modifications.

Something I've run into before with RSRDC planes is they aren't cracked up to work as expected. While using your two mods you've activated, go to the Museum and find the American Avenger plane introduced by RSRDC. Watch it for more than a couple of minutes. It flies fine at first but, slowly the nose will rise, then straight into the sea! You'll never see this plane in-game, because as soon as its spawned it will soon nose dive into the sea. Some of the other planes won't have sound. That's easy to fix, but why bother....their someone else's mod.

While in the Museum, scroll through the various nationality units as well. If you don't get a CTD with at least one of them, you'll be lucky. The Museum is a great way of checking whether a unit will create a problem in-game or not.....no CTD in the Museum, it shouldn't CTD in-game. Well, at least maybe it won't!!

Anyway, the issue with the Air_Torpedo_JP is something from RSRDC. As well as some of the other issues you've pointed out. I'd leave dead dogs lay unless you really want to fix someone else's mod (I've done it before, but no one ever notices :D).

TorpX

11-24-15, 12:55 AM

TorpX, you may have hit upon the reason for your trouble with those last two sentences, and didn't even know it. :88)

RSRDC introduces the Air_Torpedo_JP weapon to the game. It's not a stock weapon, neither does RFB add it.

I'm guessing Lurker wanted to add it. I've pretty much given up on the air torpedoes. Even if I got them to work, with the AI pilots aiming for impact hits, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Oh well. They seem to get a fair number of hits, if they go in low.

Something I've run into before with RSRDC planes is they aren't cracked up to work as expected. While using your two mods you've activated, go to the Museum and find the American Avenger plane introduced by RSRDC. Watch it for more than a couple of minutes. It flies fine at first but, slowly the nose will rise, then straight into the sea! You'll never see this plane in-game, because as soon as its spawned it will soon nose dive into the sea. Some of the other planes won't have sound. That's easy to fix, but why bother....their someone else's mod.

I did as you suggested, and I think I can shed some light on this.

I followed the Avenger, and just as you said, after about 5 min. it went wobbly, with the nose and wings going up. However, it did not crash. I kept watching, and sure enough, after another 5 min., it did it again. Five more minutes, and there he goes again. Curious, I pulled up some of the other aircraft. The American 'fighter' ('Buffalo'?), the other torpedo plane ('Devastator'?), the P-38, the A6M2 'Zero', and the H6K 'Mavis'. They all did the same thing, though the timing was different. My hypothesis is that the game has them in a sandbox, and they must turn to the left when they reach the edge.

I didn't see any crash, but the turns were awkward, at best. The P-38 had it's wings nearly vertical.

I'm trying to tamp down the sharp turns and very steep dives/pull-outs; at least for the multi-engine types. I know Germany and Japan were big on dive bombing, but I don't think Betty and Mavis types should be diving that steep.

Perhaps a bigger problem than the a/c physics, is the AI pilot tactics. They seem to want to do things that they should not, or could not do. In some of my tests, they will fly level, make a steep dive, bomb, pull out ok, but get into trouble trying to reach a higher altitude in a very short interval. A real pilot would know better than to try to climb faster than their plane can manage, but the AI seemingly does not. On a similar note, I noticed that the Kate pilots will often fly themselves into nearby hills, apparently not seeing terrain. They can fly through the trees, but if they hit land, they've had it.

CapnScurvy

11-24-15, 08:51 AM

I followed the Avenger, and just as you said, after about 5 min. it went wobbly, with the nose and wings going up. However, it did not crash. I kept watching, and sure enough, after another 5 min., it did it again. Five more minutes, and there he goes again.

Hmmmmm, I wonder if it has something to do with me using RSRDC v550 instead of v575. My Avenger takes a nose dive every time.

That wobble you've seen...... I've seen it too after a few minutes of watching the Museum planes. Since the camera is directly attached to the units, it's hard to get a bearing on which way the plane is flying. With the camera having the Free Movement capability, you can see the sunlight is on the right side of the plane when you first view it. After the wobble, the plane seems to be flying back in the direction it just came because the plane is now "lighter" on the left side. The wobble seems to be when the plane makes a turn in flight. It's hard to see the turn since there's nothing to get a bearing on when the camera is flying right along with the plane and there's nothing to get a direction of (the sea is no help), except for the direction of the sun light.

I'll admit the turning radius of the planes are unrealistic.......too sharp, but I don't know if changing the .sim file will create a different outcome, or start some other unforeseen issue?

All planes travel the same scripted path for the Museum. The way I know this is that when my Avenger crashes into the sea the smoke from the crash site is visible when the next plane flies over the area!

I'll try to see if v575 has something different than v550.

TorpX

11-24-15, 10:24 PM

That could explain it.

I've been trying to dampen both the abrupt turns, and the steep dives/climbs. Trying progressively lower values for the rudder drag, and wing drag, I got down to values of 2*10^-20. Since even this didn't help, I tried zero. Either the game has some limit overriding it, or it just ignores it.

Smaller values of the max force make the aircraft less lively, but this has both positive and negative effects.

I'm thinking it isn't going to be possible to make great improvements in this area.

I've also noted that the bombs, and torpedoes actually lunge forward when they are dropped. Drag should cause them to fall behind, but it doesn't happen that way. I guess this is a fairly minor thing, but I wonder if this affects AI aiming. Looks odd, if you happen to see it.

In any case, I want to finish this aircraft business, one way or the other. There aren't that many parameters to work with, and what there are don't seem to be terribly useful.

CapnScurvy

11-25-15, 12:53 PM

......go to the Museum and find the American Avenger plane introduced by RSRDC. Watch it for more than a couple of minutes. It flies fine at first but, slowly the nose will rise, then straight into the sea!

I'm wanting to set the record straight regarding my remarks of the RSRDC Avenger, in either v550 and v575. What I said is total BS!! It goes to show talking from "memory" is never a good thing.

Upon further review of what I said.....the Museum's RSRDC Avenger flies as expected, straight and level until it gets to its turn point, abruptly turns left about 90 degrees (compared to the sun position) at around 5 minutes into its flight. Then flies straight and true for another 5 minutes, making another 90 degree left turn to continue its pre set Museum flight. This is with SH4 v1.5, RSRDC v550, and its Patch1 v5xx. I'm convinced I was wrong in my statement regarding its dive into the sea.

I'm not wrong in having this happen. My experience was while using the Avenger with SH4 v1.4. A completely different animal!! I'll admit I'm working with adding planes to a version of Day of Infamy for v1.4 of the game. The issue has since been resolved due to some missing files that SH v1.4 requires that the original Avenger didn't have. This is where my memory mixed up the conclusion that one would see the Avenger fail....not with v1.5, but with v1.4 of the game. My apologies!! I have no excuse except for not checking my conclusion before stating it.:oops:

Although my other comments are correct......You'll get CTD's within the Museum with some of the RSRDC units, plus some of the planes don't have sound (like the Corsair).

TorpX

11-25-15, 10:02 PM

I'm wanting to set the record straight regarding my remarks of the RSRDC Avenger, in either v550 and v575. What I said is total BS!! It goes to show talking from "memory" is never a good thing.

....

My apologies!! I have no excuse except for not checking my conclusion before stating it.:oops:

Don't worry about it. I forget, or misremember, details of this stuff all the time.

I have noticed the missing engine sounds on a number of a/c. As far as museum crashes, I haven't had any lately, but I know I used to have them. It might have been an earlier version of the game. I'll have to try to go through them again.

I have a general question for WWII aviation buffs around here. In the game, most Japanese bombers are not 'level bombers', meaning they will make steep diving attacks. All bombers in the game, even fighter-bombers, have a 'level bomber', True or False switch. There really is no in-between. I tried to dampen the angle of the dives, but without success. Betty and Mavis bombers will dive like Vals, when they attack.

The question is would it make more sense to have a/c like the Betty, Mavis, or Nell as 'level bombers'?

TorpX

11-26-15, 10:36 PM

I'd hoped to be finished with this before today, but it's been slow and tedious work.

I copied a lot of values into particular aircraft files, yesterday. Today when I went to fire up the game, it promptly crashed. After investigating the issue for about an hour, I narrowed the issue down to the *.cfg files. I edited all these, because there is the maximum and minimum speeds that I changed, but this wasn't the cause. What crashed the game was a short comment I put after the "ClassName", so the type/name of each aircraft was clear. Too many of these ships and a/c have cryptic designations. I had to go into each file and place the comment at the end of the file.

Anyway, comments near the top of the file seem to cause problems. They are ok at the end, though.

I fixed the sound issue of the A6M2 'Zero'. Not sure how many a/c have this problem. The *.dsd file had a string for a Zero, but no such sound file exists. I changed it to one for a Hurricane, which does.

As far as aircraft maneuverability goes, I don't think much can be done about it. The rudder and wing drag values have no discernible effect, and I doubt the LR and UD drag values have any either. About the only thing I can use is the engine power and max force parameters, and this is hardly sufficient. Perhaps the usual drag values have no effect because the unit is not in the water. Of course, this makes them useless for a/c.

I am wondering if the SH3 a/c are this messed up.

TorpX

11-28-15, 02:24 AM

I think I've fixed the engine sound issues. They all seem to be the result of pointers referring to non-existent sound files. There are a very limited number of a/c engine sounds, so it is a simple matter to pick the best one. Oddly, some of them seemed like poor choices, so I made some changes. The had the 'Mavis' with the sound of the Sunderland, which is ok, but then had the Sunderland with a B-24 sound! :doh: There are only two single engine fighter sounds; the Hurricane, and the Mess. Bf109. No Zero, or Wildcat. I guess it shows what Ubi likes best.

I actually managed to get the Kates' torpedoes to drop and run by relabeling some things. I had to use the external cam and stop the action to make sure they just didn't disappear in the water, or get stuck in the sand. For some reason, they just go through the ships without exploding, no visible wake, either. Somebody must know how to fix this. There is a Air_Torpedo_JP.zon file with the damage parameters, but something is interfering with the function.

What is just as interesting about this, is that now the Kates will fly lower, slower, and drop the torps before getting too close. I only need this one last piece of the puzzle to make them work.

I know there have been similar game bugs before. Does anyone have any ideas?

xXNightEagleXx

11-28-15, 01:42 PM

TorpX, maybe you can help me out. I've tried this mod and i liked it (both tmo and rfb). What i didn't like was the fact that all equipment specs has gone, is there any way to fix it? This happen with any version of ISP that i have tried.

thx

TorpX

11-28-15, 11:01 PM

I went through the UPCLocalization.tsr file, using WinMerge to compare to the RFB 2.0 file. I couldn't really see what might cause the problem, so I just copied over most of the RFB portions that appeared different. That should fix it, but I'm not going to test every class/version of boat.

I've incorporated various small changes that aren't really physics things, in this version. I have used, or intend to use them in my game, and don't see any real benefit to having them in separate mods. I'll outline what they are, so if someone doesn't like them, they can take them out, with a little work.

I was hoping someone would know how to fix the air torpedo business. I hate to be this close to having a working air dropped torpedo, and have to write it off, but I'm going to release the next version soon, one way or another. I made a mission for US torpedo bombers, to see if they worked. They don't even show up with a torpedo, so no help there.

Everytime I close look at a part of this game, I come away disgusted that it is such a mess. If there were 9 easy ways, and one hard way to do something, you can bet they did it the hard way. There are so many inconsistencies, even in the things that work, it is hard to know where to go to fix an issue. I don't really know why the air torpedoes are in a separate file. Why didn't they put them all in one file? Are they fundamentally different? What triggers the explosion?

swdw

11-30-15, 06:29 PM

I'm trying to finish the next version of ISP. I, perhaps foolishly, decided to take a look at the aircraft.

That's a symptom of the modding disease. "I'll just take a look here" and then next thing you know you're elbow deep in it again. :doh::yep:

Finally got SH4 running, going to do a couple of installs, one will be for RFB, so looking forward to plugging your mod in.

TorpX

12-01-15, 01:22 AM

That's a symptom of the modding disease. "I'll just take a look here" and then next thing you know you're elbow deep in it again.

You're not kidding. :yep:

I wish I could say there were dramatic improvements in this version, but the truth is that many of the things I worked on, either hit a brick wall, or only produced modest improvements. I felt there were some things that I needed to fix, though.

xXNightEagleXx

12-01-15, 11:24 AM

I have an update about the upgrade specs issue. With TMO+RSRDC+OTC+ISP 2.6 the problem doesn't show up. However with RFB + ISP 1.1 or RFB+RSRDC+ISP 2.15 the problem shows up.

Diggin' around lead me to find some difference that might explain what is going on. Taking for example the SJ-1 Radar

RFB UPCLocalization :

SJ-1 Radar=SJ-1 Radar
SJ1RadarInfo=SJ-1 Radar|Type: ...
SJ1RadarNotes=SJ-1 is an improvement on the ...

WCAInfo=WCA Sonar|Type: ....
WCANotes=WCA sonar is a combination....

ISP UPCLocaliation :

SJ-1 Radar=SJ-1 Radar
SJ-1RadarInfo= SJ-1 Radar|Effective Range:....
SJ-1RadarNotes=An improved....

WCAHydroInfo=WCA Listening Gear|Max Range: ....
WCAHydroNotes=An early war ultrasonic passive ....

As a counterproof i made the changes below to ISP UPCLocalization and everything started to work fine (in those which i changed) :

SJ-1RadarInfo to SJ1RadarInfo
Improved SD Radar to ImpSDRadarInfo

UPDATE: I ended up creating a mod that fixes both UPCLocalization and UpgradePacks files. I fixed all info that i could by using RFB 2.0 as spec limits guide.

xXNightEagleXx

12-01-15, 01:21 PM

TorpX, let me ask you. Are you working on ISP update for RFB ?

TorpX

12-02-15, 05:43 AM

TorpX, let me ask you. Are you working on ISP update for RFB ?

Yes, the forthcoming version will be for RFB and RSRDC. I am not planning any TMO versions, it is just too much work.

Thank-you for taking an interest in this.

I have been busy today backtracking to isolate some mysterious bugs that were causing CTD when loading the museum. It isn't clear why, but after much frustration and trial and error, most things in the museum seem to work. CapnScurvy said that if it crashes in the museum, it will in the game, too. However, I've had museum crashes with the S-18 and S-42, but they are ok in game. :06:

The main outstanding problem as far as the museum goes, is one version of the Betty. There are three in RSRDC. I don't understand why there are 3. I can understand 2, because you want a separate torpedo version, but the way it is in RSRDC makes no sense to me. I am wondering if one got left in inadvertently.

This is probably not related, but I've noticed that the US subs in the museum do not have deck guns. I suppose they have always been like that, but I never really used it before.

I have made sure all the aircraft *.dsd files have existing sound files referenced. This has fixed about half of the silent a/c, but some remain silent (in the museum, lol). Don't know why. If it is some intricate business with the id mapping, then it's beyond me.

These are the Bettys:

ADB_G4M_Betty ...............torpedo (only?) version
the 'ADB' implies dive bomber, though????

ALBS_G4M_Betty ...............no torpedo

ALBS_G4M2 ........................torpedo or bombs

Right now, the top one is causing a museum crash.

swdw

12-03-15, 12:15 AM

but the truth is that many of the things I worked on, either hit a brick wall,

Brick wall? :/\\!!

Nah, couldn't be. the game designers were flawless :haha:

TorpX

12-06-15, 04:46 AM

A quick progress report:

I was looking at the *.cfg files of the ships and noticed that the mast heights seemed to be all over the place. RFB uses a system where the 'base height' is the deck, stack, or mast top, depending on the type of ship, and such. I never really liked this idea, and have been confused over which applies for a particular ship in the game. So, I am going change/correct this. This is a slow tedious process, however. I am using S3D to measure the actual dimensions of the game models, so I know for sure what they should be. I don't trust that the supposed mast heights agree with these. This program is invaluable, but also crashes a lot on my machine. I guess it's a Widows thing.

I have managed to get all the aircraft to make engine sounds. The last two seemed to have corrupted *.dsd files, the problem being fixed with new files for those. I am not crazy about the quality of the engine sounds, though. Some seem more like they are coming from a toy airplane than a WWII fighter aircraft, but it's better than having them silent like gliders.

After this, I will probably try fix one other thing, then if there are no problems in a final test, release it.

I am working very intensely to finish this, so everyone (and I) can use it over the holidays.

swdw

12-06-15, 09:35 AM

Do you need some engine sounds? I may still have some from when I used to mod Fighter Squadron: SDOE

I'll take a look if you need some

Captain Dave

12-06-15, 10:21 AM

I've been reading your posts about aircraft doing weird things and came upon this on Oahu. Saw an icon that said slow moving so I checked it out. It's a B-24 with its wing tip touching the ground, engines revving, not going anywhere.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/daver/SH4Img2015-12-05_21.28.36_092.jpg
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/daver/media/SH4Img2015-12-05_21.28.36_092.jpg.html

TorpX

12-06-15, 11:05 PM

Do you need some engine sounds? I may still have some from when I used to mod Fighter Squadron: SDOE

I'll take a look if you need some

If you would be willing to put them into a usable form for the game, that would be great. I know next to nothing about how sound works in the game.

These are all the engine sounds that are used:
B-24 airplane
Catalina airplane
Hurricane airplane
JU87Stuka airplane
Messerschmitt Bf 109 airplane
Short Sunderland airplane
Swordfish Torpedo Bi-Plane
There are two for each of the above; one normal sound, and one damaged sound, all *.wav files. The fighter area seems skimpy to me. I've put in the Hurricane for every fighter, except any liquid-cooled types like the Bf 109, which are few. The dive bombers have the Ju87, but it sounds weak to me. Of course, I have no idea what they should sound like; that is just my impression.

There is also a JU 87 siren sound, but I don't believe any a/c use it. I don't know if it should be used on any dive bombers.

The 4-engine sounds, and the Catalina, seem ok to me.

If you don't have time for this sort of thing, I understand. I just want to finish this project before the holidays are over, so I am trying to rush all this through.

I've been reading your posts about aircraft doing weird things and came upon this on Oahu. Saw an icon that said slow moving so I checked it out. It's a B-24 with its wing tip touching the ground, engines revving, not going anywhere.

Yes, that is the B-24, that looks like a Lancaster. :03:

I don't think these sorts of things are really fixable. For whatever reason, the inputs that work for the ships' files do not work for the a/c. Possibly, the drag parameters were designed to only work for objects in the water. About the only thing I could do was reduce their power, and fix the sound problem.

Really, the game needs a better AI. The ships' crews will do stupid things too (like the constant helming thing), but if you over steer your ship, it doesn't stall, or sink. :-?

TorpX

12-09-15, 02:58 AM

In case anyone is waiting, I am close to finishing this.

I've measured the length and height of the ship models, and am in the process of calculating the mast heights of everything. It is not complicated, but takes time and is very tedious.

Does anyone know how to change the tool tips in the game? I noticed that in the rec manual there is one that states the reference points for the different ships. I need to change that.

SilentPrey

12-09-15, 12:40 PM

CapnScurvy has gone over all of that for OTC. Are you in contact with him?

ColonelSandersLite

12-09-15, 02:14 PM

Does anyone know how to change the tool tips in the game? I noticed that in the rec manual there is one that states the reference points for the different ships. I need to change that.

Where and how? I never noticed such a feature existed!

xXNightEagleXx

12-09-15, 08:55 PM

...the forthcoming version will be for RFB and RSRDC....

I guess there is no way to see a RFB only version?! I'm not the biggest rsrdc fan here in the forum.

TorpX

12-10-15, 01:43 AM

I figured out the tool tip item, but now I cannot get the museum to load. It seems even the smallest thing can crash it. :nope:

I am beginning to wonder if I will ever get this done. :/\\!!

TorpX

12-11-15, 02:06 AM

Improved Ship Physics_2.8 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4829) has been released!

These are some of the highlights:

Changes for v2.8:
* 'fog' issue corrected
* S-class acceleration slightly reduced
* crew rosters and performance reworked
* torpedo malfunctions/performance reworked
* airborne sensors changed
* map contacts restored
* aircraft physics changed
* rec. manual/stadimeter improved

I'll comment on some of the details later.

This is a RFB and RSRDC version.

I do not recommend using this with an existing non-ISP career, or enabling this at sea. The game is very fussy about crew roster details, and will crash things if you give it an excuse.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! :subsim:

xXNightEagleXx

12-11-15, 05:01 AM

TorpX

12-11-15, 05:25 AM

Thanks mate, that said I guess there is no chance to see a rfb only version right?!

No. I'm not going to be doing multiple versions of this. It takes too much time, and is very frustrating. I didn't want to be working on this X-mas eve, banging my head against the wall, and my graphics card may be on the way out, anyway.

If some enterprising modder wants to make a RFB, or TMO version, they have my blessing.

I'm not sure I'll ever release another mod, tbh. I haven't really played the game that much recently, and modding doesn't really put me in the mood to enjoy the game. If I do work on anything again, it will be to improve something in the game set-up I'm using. Trying to update RFB, TMO, RSRDC, GFO, whatever, is a lot of tedious detail work, without the rewards of achieving anything new. I feel the time would be better spent exploring new possibilities, than doing half a dozen versions of the same thing.

CapnScurvy

12-11-15, 05:37 AM

Merry Christmas to you as well TorpX!!

Thanks for the hard work involved.... Enjoy the holidays!

TorpX

12-12-15, 04:14 PM

Thank-you Cap'n!

I thought I'd take time to comment on some of the details of the mod. Hopefully, I've explained things well enough in the docs, but I'll talk about some of the hows and whys, in case anyone is interested. If any players want to know more detail on this sort of thing, now would be the time to ask. In three months, I'll have forgotten 3/4 of all this.

1. I corrected a fog/visibility issue that creeped into the previous RFB version. Most likely, I used the wrong scene.dat file as a starting point (the pre-patch version). Anyway, I redid that, so we should be able to lock on to ships as well as we could in RFB 2.0. An Odd thing I noticed in the scene.dat file is the large number of 'fog' items. No wonder problems occur here.

2. I made changes to the rec. manual. Mainly just accurate mast heights. I corrected the lengths in the files, but these are not displayed in RFB, so it doesn't really help much. This actually took a lot of time, as I had to measure the hights and lengths of all the ships' game models. I found the RFB concept of using the top of deck, or stack, or mast, depending on the ship, to be unacceptable. I never was sure what I should use.

Along with the above, I relocated the ships' flags to the top masts to make them more visible. Range finding will still be difficult at longer range, but this should be of some help at medium ranges. I was amused to find one IJN carrier has no flag at all. Since it has no island, or mast, there is no place to put it - makes me wonder how they operated on that ship.

3. I would have liked to implement the fixes Cap'nScurvy made in OTC, but am not well enough acquainted with the details, so I settled for dealing with the mast height issue above.

4. I noticed that in the museum, one has rec. manual pages for everything, even the aircraft, so I assume it is possible to put them in the game. If I had a better understanding of that part of things, I would have put them in. I did make some minor changes to types of ships, so the order of things in rec. manual is altered.

5. I toyed with the idea of doing my own version of a damage model, but dropped the idea when I realized how long it would take to do it properly. This is probably the sort of thing one could spend a year on, and still not be finished. I consider the present damage system to be a weak point in the game.

6. I attempted to put a periscope 'splash' effect (as distinct from the 'wake' effect) on the periscopes. Either the idea just won't work, or I didn't do it right. Most likely the later. The idea was that you would have to limit your speed to under 4 kn., if you wanted to have a good view out of your scope.

More later...

aanker

12-12-15, 05:58 PM

More later...

Good read, thanks, and Thank you for 2.8 TorpX

Rockin Robbins

12-12-15, 06:29 PM

I made changes to the rec. manual. Mainly just accurate mast heights. I corrected the lengths in the files, but these are not displayed in RFB, so it doesn't really help much. This actually took a lot of time, as I had to measure the hights and lengths of all the ships' game models.
How many modders are going to fall into the trap that requires postulating that the US Navy rented every ship in the enemy navy, both merchant and warship and fixed up our recognition manual with correct ship lengths and masthead heights for every friggin' ship on the entire ocean?

In fact our historical recognition manuals weren't much help. Not only were ship lengths and masthead heights wrong, but it only contained a minority of ships that would be encountered. It wasn't just a matter of encountering ships with the wrong information, although that happened. For the majority of ships encountered the recognition manual was no help whatever.

Now we have an arcade game that makes a shambles of reality. The game devs at least gave us a manual riddled with errors. That was a better approximation of reality than impossible perfect knowledge can ever be.

My suggestion would be that if you want perfect recognition manuals, make them as a separate mod rather than forcing a deal with the devil in order to use Improved Ship Physics. What does a recognition manual have to do with ship physics anyway? Nothing. What do weather adjustments and visibility adjustments have to do with ship physics? Nothing.

I believe that mods should be historically plausible. Now you've jumped in bed with CapnScurvy to turn history into comedy. Now your mod is just as broken as his.

I also believe that single purpose mods, like Improved Ship Physics, should confine their fixes to their announced areas of concern or call them what they are: supermods.
As a matter of fact, why not merge ISP and OTC into a supermod. Other than damage models, which you've mentioned, you would certainly have all the ingredients.

CapnScurvy

12-13-15, 01:36 AM

Rockin Robbins

12-13-15, 08:58 AM

Once again RR provides his "comedic" opinion regarding his take on game play.

I'll link one of my previous replies (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2360491&postcount=12) for his long standing criticism of finding corrected measurements in the Recognition Manual.
Yes I do, and unless you demonstrate the historical plausibility of the US taking precise measurements of every single ship on the ocean and placing a perfect identification manual in our submarines you will remain wrong.

They missed lots of times because of wrong information. And no, they could not sashay over to the aircraft carrier they just missed, call time out, measure the thing (they didn't have a ruler that long, by the way:rotfl2:) and then correct their ID manual. The cold, hard fact is that unlike us, they didn't know why they missed. Some lost their commands because they did, for reasons not related to their fitness for command. Life is tough and you get on anyway. They did. Every one of them cursed the name of CapnScurvy because they couldn't have your perfect ID manual. You KNOW they wanted it but you failed them. The truth is they would have killed or died to get such a thing. The truth was that it was impossible to obtain short of calling time out, renting every Japanese ship on the ocean and measuring them in controlled conditions. Wanting and having are very different things and we are often faced with things we want that are impossible to obtain. Therefore your entire logic is non-responsive to my contentions.

Non-response to my challenge is admission that you are doing that for personal reasons not related to quality of the game. This is a simulation. Simulation implies fidelity to the problems of the past and our quest to solve them in a historically plausible way.

OTC and now ISP are implausible. Therefore they are not legitimate historically plausible mods. Just removing the hokey ID manual from each would render them the highest quality work rendered for SH4. Keeping them in is a deal breaker for me unless you can prove that the ID manual aboard our submarines was of comparable accuracy. You can't. They weren't. They were even worse than our stock ID manual. Case closed.

I quote CapnScurvy in the above linked diatribe: "For those that accept the fact that the game limits a single measurement (the only one found in the RM) to be the basis of calculating Range to target when using the Stadimeter, and you accept the reality that this measurement is going to produce an inaccurate Range to target, every time you use the measurement.....then stop here and be content to accept RR's idea of game play reality."

A better statement of my case couldn't be made. That is what happened with stadimeter measurements throughout the war that relied on the ID manual, and with the vast majority of firings where the ID manual was as useful as a comic book and they just had to estimate height based on cabin heights, number of decks and a little hocus-pocus. They missed a lot. When Dick O'Kane lost his radar, he radioed back to Pearl "there goes half my torpedoes, wasted." Why? Read Scurvy's "devastating" attack on the truth. The truth is unacceptable, therefore he changed it. That ruined a masterful couple of mods.

And Capn, there were never a couple of complimentary mods like ISP and OTC. You really should consider pooling your resources with Torpx and release a combo supermod composed of the two mods.

CapnScurvy

12-13-15, 12:13 PM

unless you demonstrate the historical plausibility of the US taking precise measurements of every single ship on the ocean and placing a perfect identification manual in our submarines you will remain wrong.

You seem to wish to confuse game play with reality and contend they should be one and the same.

They can not!!

We aren't even coming close to reality when playing a computer game. There's no consequence to bad judgment outside of a Death Screen that provides the player with a simple "do over". We play a game on a 2 dimensional screen, when the reality of life is played within a 3 dimensional world. This game limits "simulation" to only a mear definition of the word....certanly not in its play structure.

You demand that measurements should be inaccurate at all levels. You expect us to accept your opinion that even when a measurement is found incorrect, a competent "real life" individual would not correct the measurement. I've already proved with a tool like the U.S.S. Cod's Omnimeter, the measurement device will be corrected when it's found in error (linked post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2355985&postcount=954)).

For you to suggest that we should accept poor inaccurate measurements is truly a false hood that neither lends itself to reality, nor to expected game play. No player expects the game to be "rigged" to not provide a reasonable accurate solution due to inaccurate measurements. A player should expect poor results with poor execution, but not with a tool that never accurately measures due to inaccurate measurements.

My providing accurate measurements for a game that doesn't even come close to reality is for game playability. I couldn't care less about your conclusions of mast height deception, or some notion that we could never figure out a ships true measurement (even though many merchants, by all sides, were manufactured by the same shipyards). If there is a misrepresentation of what a game should be, its one of accepting inaccurate outcomes never correcting themselves.

ColonelSandersLite

12-13-15, 01:10 PM

Do we *really* need to argue about OTC in the ISP thread? Really? Seems a touch disrespectful of TorpX's hard work IMHO. Just a smidgen.

And Scurvy, *NOBODY* is going to follow a link to an argument you had with some guy and read the whole thing, including it's links to prior arguments. Just not happening buddy.

Edit:
Once again, for people that failed to spend the renown on sarcasm detectors; By " Just a smidgen", I mean extremely. There's a perfectly good OTC thread on this very board, in which to argue about OTC.

CapnScurvy

12-13-15, 01:50 PM

@ Lite, I'm not the one that brought up an opinion about OTC in this thread!! Your talking at the wrong guy.

But, I'll sure defend my position since it was!!

Thanks for your input, buddy.

ColonelSandersLite

12-13-15, 01:55 PM

No. One. Cares.

To put it another way, two wrongs don't make a right.

aanker

12-13-15, 02:12 PM

As an example, I like the 'Optical Targeting Correction' mod, obviously it was needed, however to use it I needed to modify the menu_1024_768.ini, and other files that changed some unrelated things I was already happy with.

I keep my mouth shut because I am very grateful that there still are talented people who are willing to spend the time and continue to make fantastic mods eight +/- years after SH4 was released. Amazing!

The point raised by RR and some others makes sense when considering whether or not to add a 'much needed' mod; I always need to ask, 'what else does it do??'

It is my responsibility to struggle to learn how to add or remove features in a mod that will change things back to how I like my SH4 to run. So many other players can't mod their games though. I'm not that good either so I choose not to install certain mods I could like because they are way beyond my abilities to reverse engineer.

Lastly, RSRD began as a 'shipping' mod that has turned into a mega mod that changes additional features in SH4 now. I wish RSRD stayed with the traffic layers. I'm not complaining though, I just don't use it.

Happy Hunting! - (I hope I didn't ramble too much here)

Rockin Robbins

12-13-15, 04:49 PM

And that is why I will make my opinion known, supply reasons for that opinion, give links to verification of my claims, but I will not modify OTC or any other mod made by an active modder for the benefit of anyone.

These are Torpx and CapnScurvy's mods and they will remain so. And make no mistake, I don't say their work is of poor quality, the workmanship is the best ever on Subsim.

All modders of megamods, and these are two, give you a package of items, some of which you might like and some like less so. You load it up or you don't. My vision of where modding should go is not theirs. Tough toenails.

I have no problem sharing a room with my strong opinions and I have no problem sharing one with theirs. Subsim is a better place and Silent Hunter is a better game because they are here. Both of them have contributed far more than I have.

TorpX

12-13-15, 04:58 PM

How many modders are going to fall into the trap ...?

One more, I guess.

Since this item has sparked so much controversy, I'll outline why I decided to do it this way.

In my view, the stadimeter is already handicapped by the monitor resolution limitations. We simply can't see details like masts very well. Same applies to aircraft, btw. When I was testing them, I found it very hard to locate them at any distance, even though I knew in advance where they were coming from. I don't see the sense in giving the player a double penalty.

I don't share your view that the RL rec. manual was worthless. In fact, I consider it was a better resource, overall, than what we have. For example, they had info related to speed vs. rpm's that we can't use. Were there errors? I'm sure there were, but I don't consider it sensible to sabotage the whole deal.

I started that part of the mod, because of RFB's inconsistent reference points. It wasn't clear to me that the extra ships in RSRDC used the same logic. Anyway, I decided to opt for a consistent reference point. The tabulation and changes in the listed mast heights had to be done to complete this. If the RFB system had been consistent, and was roughly accurate, I wouldn't have bothered to open the matter up. However, I wasn't going to all the trouble of doing the measurements, and then dump nonsense numbers on everyone. I can just imagine the reaction if I threw in inaccurate data. People would say, I wanted to use ISP, but then heard it messes up the stadimeter/rec. manual, so you can't do manual targeting, so I decided not to use it. I think most people would prefer the accurate numbers.

If you, or others don't like my system, you have several options:

You can use an earlier version.

You can alter the mod to your taste.

You can accept the stock or RFB physics, as is.

You can build your own physics mod.

No. 2 can be done easily by going into each ship's folder, and taking out the *.cfg file. Or, you can substitute your own numbers, providing a increased error factor.

I'm not really sure why you have such an issue with this. You have frequently advocated for the use of 'map-contacts'. This provides more accurate data than you can ever hope to obtain with the stadimeter, whatever numbers are used for the mast height.

I agree that it is easier for us to ID ships, than it was in RL, but I consider that this is a matter better addressed in other ways. Perhaps, someone who is good at building digital models can make some doppelganger ships. These could look very similar to standard merchants, but not be exactly alike. I think it would even be possible to design them, so the same type of ship would have different mast arrangements (in the same manner that ships might be armed, or not); meaning a positive ID would not always be possible.

************************************************** ************

Back to my development notes....

7. I had the idea of putting in sub laid mines. Others have talked about this here and there. I gather it has been done in SH3. However, to glean anything from this, I would have to redo the campaign, so I dropped this. Most players would probably find mine-laying missions dull, anyway. If I had my own campaign to build, I would put them in, though.

8. I did more experiments with the good ol' scene.dat., trying to get wind speeds higher than 15 m/s. Didn't work. I sure would have liked to fix this issue. There is a checkbox 'use mission controllers' or something like that. Unchecking allows higher wind speeds (with other changes in file), but also causes the game to 'forget' about the matter, so they end up changing once or twice, then getting stuck.

9. I considered redoing the waves parameters in the same file, but decided it wasn't productive. Some didn't like my weather, but there are actually two scene.dat files. One produces what I call 'mild' weather. It is still stronger than RFB or stock, but is hardly unbearable. The whole point of having weather changes is to challenge the player. If the weather is always nice and easy, what's the point?

10. I restored map-contacts in the game. That is, even the pointy ship silhouettes that you have when zoomed-in. I'm not an advocate of using them in careers, at least not for experienced players, but there are situations where they are desirable. Like for new, or rusty players, mission development, mod development, things like that. I find them very useful in studying and testing the physics of things. This also includes all the aircraft, and the torpedoes and attack map stuff. Some people in the past have stated they liked RFB overall, but used other mods because of this. I figure people can suit themselves in this matter.

More later.................

Rockin Robbins

12-13-15, 05:44 PM

10. I restored map-contacts in the game. That is, even the pointy ship silhouettes that you have when zoomed-in. I'm not an advocate of using them in careers, at least not for experienced players, but there are situations where they are desirable. Like for new, or rusty players, mission development, mod development, things like that. I find them very useful in studying and testing the physics of things. This also includes all the aircraft, and the torpedoes and attack map stuff. Some people in the past have stated they liked RFB overall, but used other mods because of this. I figure people can suit themselves in this matter.
More later.................

TMOPlot and EZPlot will change any mod configuration into whatever plotting system people like without making any changes to your mod's gameplay so it's really not an issue. People have their choice of plotting systems regardless of mod setup.

Because of the hard-wired nature of plotting, we can't get to the perfect plotting system no matter what we do. So choice is appropriate.

Although I usually play with TMOPlot, you'll notice just about all my videos are done with EZPlot and the stock silhouettes for clear illustration of the principles being taught.

And yes, everyone who has played with water and atmosphere has come up with a bloody nose. The law of unintended consequences seems to play a heavy hand there. At the end of the process you say "it's different." Is it better? Yes and no. For every consequence you intended there are three others you didn't intend. Two of those are bad. It's fun to play with but seems scarce on rewards!:haha:

I look forward to playing with ISP.

TorpX

12-14-15, 11:49 PM

Yes, additional choices are good.

More notes....

I forgot to say, another reason I put back the contact silhouettes is that some of the ships had them (RSRDC's ships?), so you could zoom in, and have a few ships show up, while most disappeared. I found this disconcerting.

I also put in the internal ships names, Biyo Maru, Haruna Maru, etc. Partly, this was for my own convenience, but I think it is better than the bare discriptions of old split freighter, etc.

11. I installed SH3 just so I could extract the scene.dat file and test it in SH4. The reason I did this is to see if I could replicate the way waves influence the boat even while you are submerged. I really wanted to accomplish this, but no soap. I don't know what the difference between the games is, but it's there. I also remember that occurred in SHCE. Even at periscope depth, you were slowed by wave action. It made for difficult approaches at times; in heavy seas, you had to descend to 90 ft. or so, sprint ahead for several minutes, climb back to p/d to make an observation, then repeat. You couldn't always just speed along at periscope depth. It required making a tradeoff of speed vs. observation.

12. I tried to implement some kind of anti-hummingbird feature. This just didn't work. I'm aware this has been done for SH3 (NYGM, I think?), but I've concluded it requires changes to the game code. I tried various changes to the numbers for the pumps zone in the zones.cfg file. None of this produced the desired effect. I tried hard to get this to work. If this could have been combined with a periscope vibration effect (see 6.), it would have been a substantial gain in realistic gameplay, imo.

13. Crew changes. I made considerable changes to the crew set-up. For starters, I found the S-classes had crews that were too large, so they were cut down. I tried to have the numbers close to what N. Friedman gives in his reference, but at the higher end it gets to be a bit much. He gives a figure of 54 for Gato, but 71 for Balao, and Tench. Apart from Radar operators, I don't know what all the extra men are for. Anyway, it makes for a crowded crew page.

In the middle of this, I made the unhappy discovery that the game doesn't seem to do much with the compartment efficiency levels (the green bars on the crew page). I tried many changes and tricks in the subs' *.upc files to get the game to use them, but had no success. Even so, I decided to finish the crew changes. Maybe the game uses these things on some subtle level. It does use them in the propulsion compartment, at least.

I changed the Efficiency denominators for all the compartments. This is necessary when one changes the number of crew in the compartment. The game takes the Ef of all the men on duty (with whatever leadership bonuses they get), and divides by the denominator. There is both a normal denominator, and a battle stations denominator. These can be any value, but the game ignores fractional values, so a entry of 3.5 works the same as 3. This limits what can be done in terms of making subtle changes. The system I finally settled on was to use a normal denominator value of X for a compartment with X men on duty, and a BS value of Y/2 for that (fractions rounded down). This means normal Ef levels will always be toward the low side, and always get a large boost at BS.

It would be nice if there were a way to make more subtle changes, but don't really see a way to do it. If, for example, one has a torpedo room crew of 6 men, with 2 on duty on a normal shift, I used a Ef denominator of 2, with a BS Ef denominator of 3. Since you are starting with a value of 2, and the game takes no account of fractions here, you are very limited. Using a value of 1 would give a huge boost, and a value of 3 would make the Ef levels very, very low. Oddly (or perhaps not), it doesn't seem to make much difference in practical terms. Torpedoes can be launched just as well at low Ef levels, as at high levels. :doh:

I increased the sleep coef. for crew berthing, so crew will recover faster here. I did this to make it possible for a skipper to rotate some crewmen, even at BS, in case he anticipates a need for a prolonged chase requiring a high alert level. Crew in this compartment will not increase fatigue as quickly, even when awake, and will recover a little faster. I also added some slots here, so players can even add one or two men to their crews, if they want.

I changed the reloading weapons, and repair coefs. This should make these tasks a little more tiring. I made the watchstanding coef. higher at gun stations, so leaving men at these stations is more fatiguing. Crew sleeping at their guns will only recover half as quickly.

I kept the main coefficients for watchstanding, maintenance, and sleep (in most compartments), as is.

I changed the skill mix used for the compartments, the qualifications, and the basic values crew get. Mainly, I did this because I didn't understand the logic of what RFB used. This isn't to say their's are not good, or mine are better, but since I was changing everything above, I think the parts should fit together, and have some underlying logic.

Propulsion [all engines]
70% mechanical
30% electrical

Command [control room]
50% mechanical
50% electrical

Sensors [conning tower]
50% electrical
50% watchman

Torpedo [usually provide crew for guns]
50% mechanical
50% guns*

Crew Berthing [Hogan's Alley]
none

Damage Control
40% mechanical
40% electrical
20% guns*

Deck Guns
20% mechanical
50% guns*
30% watchman

Deck
100% watchman

*my belief is that 'guns' skill is actually weapons skill, as there is no weapons skill given.

I put back the 'Watch' qualification. I'm not sure why it was taken out, but I think it makes sense to use it.

I made it so that crew start their patrol or mission with some fatigue now.

I changed the starting crew mixes. Mostly this is inconsequential, but there are two crew you should be aware of. First is the Lieutenant-XO. He is the default 'XO' of your boat. He should (on average) have higher than usual leaderships values, and such. This doesn't mean he will actually be great; the game rolls dice on their abilities. The second is the CPO-COB. He is the 'Chief of the Boat'. He likewise should have higher than normal abilities for his rank. The XO is the first shift officer on the deck. The COB is the first shift leader in propulsion. Of course, you can change their assignments, if you consider them sub-par.

I put in more 'officer' slots. Officers are said to give their leadership bonuses to the entire crew. The extra slots don't seem to change Ef levels overall. It appears that the game only uses one officer at a time.

In general, I wanted to give the player a mediocre crew to start with, and let him build up a better, more experienced crew over time.

14. Aircraft. I did a lot of tests trying to improve the physics of a/c. Mostly this didn't work. The values of rudder drag, and wing drag in the *.sim files, that we would expect to use for this, had no effect. Possibly, this is due to the fact that aircraft are in the files 'obj_hydro'. [Shouldn't they be 'object_aero'?] I reduced the values of the max_force, so they are less rocket-like. I might have used even lower values, but there seemed to be a tendency for the planes to wallow in the air, or ditch in the water, when I tried this. These issues are partly a matter of pilot AI.

I checked, and altered where needed the eng_power values. For the aircraft, I used the full combined horsepower for this.

Then the max_force = 0.20 * eng_power / (mass * max speed)

[Note that this is different than what was calculated for ships.]

I noticed the 'Bettys' seemed to want to crash into target ships a lot. This seemed to be due to having a very low minimum altitude in the files. I changed them to level bombers, as this seems more sensible to me. Half a dozen planes didn't have engine sounds. I fixed that. I put in the Allied code names for the IJ aircraft for the displayable names.

A tried to get the AIR torpedoes to work. The 'Kates' in the game really just make low level bombing attacks. The 'torpedoes' were, in fact, bombs, always exploding right after hitting the water (or ship). I was able to get the Kates to drop torpedoes that would run underwater, but they failed to explode at target. I don't know why, but think this is probably fixable, so I left them in the mod. Someone may be able to supply the missing piece.

15. Torpedo changes. I reworked the torpedoes *.sim files. This, of course, to change malfunction elements. At the higher end, RFB 2.0 had a 100% dud rate. I reduced this. I also incorporated two new modes of failure: sinking torpedoes, and surface running torpedoes. I couldn't get the surface runners to make a spray, but they provide a decent simulation of a porpoising torpedo, otherwise. As far as I can tell, they are no more visible to enemy crews, than normal torpedoes.

I guess that's about it.