FAREWELL TO SILENT HUNTER

[jorgegonzalito]

Hello everyone: I did not want to leave the forum without greet and thank all those who answered my messages, contributing their ideas and suggestions. After having tried for a while SH III and IV, and have accumulated many objections whose comments have tried to delete the forum, I have to admit that the problem is simply that I do not like Silent Hunter. It is a game with many possibilities were woefully faced by Ubisoft, despite the magnificent work of many enthusiasts with many mods that try to solve the many flaws of this game, the perverse logic of it could not be neutralized. Silent Hunter methodology is create you the player a level of difficulty that often exaggeration. Any simulator also has the configuration of realism, a tool to select the level of difficulty: low, medium, high, Silent Hunter does not. An inexperienced player may become demoralized by having from the very beginning the disadvantages that the game poses you at all times. I thought SH4 and peaceful campaign would be more "light" compared to SH3 Atlantic, but it turned out the opposite. While SH3 I could sink a few enemy ships, despite the dogged pursuit of escort vessels; in SH4 I was practically impossible even shoot a few torpedoes. A long journey from distant ports to the area of ​​operations, despite the compression of time that when you get close to the target, fatigue, boredom and bad mood has invaded us. Then the difficulties begin the game presents: the inability to maintain the underwater surface by constant siege from an exaggerated amount of enemy aircraft, hinders any possibility to operate with certain normality. As in SH3, in the Pacific do not appear isolated boats can be easily sunk, but large heavily guarded convoys, with the aggravating circumstance that the proportion in relation to escort merchant ships is much higher: 1 escort for every two or three merchant ships. A curtain of destroyers becomes an impassable barrier that does not allow the submarine to approach the convoy, at a safe distance to aim and fire their torpedoes. While you see the ships in the convoy away, merely running for his life, chased for hours through several warships to take turns throwing their depth charges, and the incessant sound of asdic threatening. A game should provide the player some pleasure, but when it occurs rather than frustration, annoyance and stress, can call game? Farewell friends!

[Havan_IronOak]

Tastes in gaming differ and no more so than in simulators. This one is not as approachable as many other games.

However, this game does offer varying degrees of difficulty. I found that the U-Boat campaign in SH4 using auto targeting was a great place to start. Airplanes CAN be an issue but if you're looking for a more plane free experience, either install a mod that nerfs them or patrol mostly at night and lay idle and submerged during the day. In the vanilla game, you can also go to your assigned patrol zone and then venture wherever you like to get your kills. Patrolling areas further from land but still in the shipping lanes does work. Convoys ARE a challenge but they can be avoided. There are plenty of single merchant vessels that are unescorted.

Again I'm not advocating any of these strategies, or even suggesting that you try the game again if you really disliked it. Just wanted to make anyone reading your post that most of your objections to the game can be overcome.

You might also watch this guy's let's play. I've accused him of sculpting with a chainsaw where I tend to use a scalpel but he does have fun and gets results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEbCotyI4Xg&list=PLiBpoQa3Hu1t1UO0FvwjylrTTp3U9TFj9&index=2

[Crannogman]

Sorry that you didn't enjoy it. Fair weather and following seas

[Sailor Steve]

I'm sorry to hear that, Jorge. As Havan_IronOak said, everyone has different tastes. I like the Silent Hunter games because I like submarines, and don't care about the gaming aspects. Having said that, I can understand your frustration.

Best of luck to you in your future gaming endeavours.

'Sailor Steve' Bradfield

[Rockin Robbins]

Jorge, I understand your frustration but it is not because the difficulty of the game is higher than reality. It is different, but it is very surmountable. I'm on my first cruise in two years, have sunk 8 freighters, avoided 2 warships, avoided well over a hundred planes (was spotted twice, bombed once) and I've still got a quarter tank of diesel in the boat and three torpedoes, so one more freighter before I head back to Midway.

If you don't like the game, fine, but it is the finest submarine simulator on the planet, teaches things about WWII submarines that no book can, and is just a total hoot to play. I find Borderlands 2 much more difficult than Silent Hunter 4. I'll have my airplane avoidance video up in 48 hours I hope and still working on the stadimeter tracking video. Had to get more practice playing the game again so I don't look like a total noob.:haha:

Sorry to see you go. Wish you had given the game a little more chance. I don't think any real submariner earned his dolphins in two weeks and your expecting to is pretty unrealistic.

[Aktungbby]

I don't think any real submariner earned his dolphins in two weeks and your expecting to is pretty unrealistic. ^ PRECISELY: instant gratification in a simulation of what was essentially a boring, dangerous and progressively ineffective method of warfare is unrealistic. :/\\!!

[granite00]

I'm still in my very first Pacific campaign and am playing at 100% realism. I wouldn't be able to play effectively at that level without spending many hours reading forum posts by those who've been playing SH4 since 2007.

I've also spent quite a bit of time watching YouTube videos of others playing. Most were very helpful. If you haven't watched videos by Rockin Robbins, WernerSobe and many others who truly understand the game and have developed excellent techniques, you're not doing yourself any favors.

You can play with drastically reduced realism and work your way into the game; this choice is available to you. Come back and install a mod that doesn't amp up the enemy's capabilities. Take some time to learn tried and true attack and evasion techniques. Gradually increase the difficulty levels. I think you'll be surprised at how far a little self-study can take you.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Best of luck to you, Gorge.

Just a thought though... impatience and "simulation" really don't fit in the same box at all.

You might seriously consider that concept if you are considering any other type of simulation as well.

[Rockin Robbins]

We run into the same thing in the radio control airplane gig. People bop in, buy themselves a P-51 and expect to be an expert in about an hour. And we try to explain, yeah, Chuck Yeager didn't learn to fly on a P-51 and you're not going to either. But they don't listen and we just ask them to take a video because that's all they're going to end up with.

Sometimes we waste our time advising them to buy a trainer plane, find an instructor, read everything they can possibly get their hands on, and they say they won't fly one of those ugly looking high wing trainer planes. We tell 'em a landed trainer looks much nicer than a P-51 crater. No effect. They crash, blame their radio or something and say goodbye just like someone around here. "The radio lost contact and I had no input to the plane. It crashed of course. None of this equipment is good enough to be useful. Bye!"

Makes you a little hesitant to help a newbie, and then there comes one who listens, works the plan and starts a great hobby. The Silent Hunter series is a bit like that.

[ColonelSandersLite]

Best of luck to you, Gorge.

Just a thought though... impatience and "simulation" really don't fit in the same box at all.

You might seriously consider that concept if you are considering any other type of simulation as well.

QFT

It's worth noting that expecting sh4 to be an easy game is counter productive, given that 1 in 4 American Submariners never came home. Better than the 3 in 4 rate the kriegsmarine suffered, but still.

The game is doable though. In my most recent patrol I tore apart 2 convoys and a few singles. I think 15 merchants and a few destroyers.

Edit: I checked, 78,326 tons. 14 Freighters, 4 Tankers, 3 Destroyers
Seriously depth charged 4 times, the last resulting in minor hull damage, moderate subsystem damage in the aft torpedo room, moderate flooding, and a destroyed rear torpedo tube, not that I had a torpedo to put in it at that stage. Got the damage under control very quickly. Also torpedoed a lone nippon maru with my last torpedo, but it didn't sink :(.

[goodpoints]

Hello everyone: I did not want to leave the forum without greet and thank all those who answered my messages, contributing their ideas and suggestions. After having tried for a while SH III and IV, and have accumulated many objections whose comments have tried to delete the forum, I have to admit that the problem is simply that I do not like Silent Hunter. It is a game with many possibilities were woefully faced by Ubisoft, despite the magnificent work of many enthusiasts with many mods that try to solve the many flaws of this game, the perverse logic of it could not be neutralized. Silent Hunter methodology is create you the player a level of difficulty that often exaggeration. Any simulator also has the configuration of realism, a tool to select the level of difficulty: low, medium, high, Silent Hunter does not. An inexperienced player may become demoralized by having from the very beginning the disadvantages that the game poses you at all times. I thought SH4 and peaceful campaign would be more "light" compared to SH3 Atlantic, but it turned out the opposite. While SH3 I could sink a few enemy ships, despite the dogged pursuit of escort vessels; in SH4 I was practically impossible even shoot a few torpedoes. A long journey from distant ports to the area of ​​operations, despite the compression of time that when you get close to the target, fatigue, boredom and bad mood has invaded us. Then the difficulties begin the game presents: the inability to maintain the underwater surface by constant siege from an exaggerated amount of enemy aircraft, hinders any possibility to operate with certain normality. As in SH3, in the Pacific do not appear isolated boats can be easily sunk, but large heavily guarded convoys, with the aggravating circumstance that the proportion in relation to escort merchant ships is much higher: 1 escort for every two or three merchant ships. A curtain of destroyers becomes an impassable barrier that does not allow the submarine to approach the convoy, at a safe distance to aim and fire their torpedoes. While you see the ships in the convoy away, merely running for his life, chased for hours through several warships to take turns throwing their depth charges, and the incessant sound of asdic threatening. A game should provide the player some pleasure, but when it occurs rather than frustration, annoyance and stress, can call game? Farewell friends!

Interesting, I'm fairly new to Silent Hunter and Silent Hunter 4 as well, though my initial impressions have been rather different.

Sounds almost like you're simulating the reactions of American sub commanders like Lt Cmdr Chappell, USS Sculpin:

https://i.gyazo.com/ac15c280890477bde90da89da6ae95c3.png


or Lt Cmdr Daspit, USS Tinosa:

https://i.gyazo.com/9d03c86028b48fd1c259824b4d28c354.png
https://i.gyazo.com/e1e8c0edafe49f2df0f04cbb461a4761.png

And in regards to comments about exaggerated Japanese air patrols, I'm not sure what mods you were playing but I would suggest you play for a few hours on less than 1000x TC before you make such assessments.

I agree, like many, that Ubisoft is an all around horrible dev, especially when it comes to something as intricate as a submarine simulation. However, complaining about the frustration, annoyance, stress, and boredom of simulating submarine patrols is like complaining that in order to shoot some baddies in a flight sim you have to actually learn to take off AND land the plane first. (at least, if it's something other than War Thunder) It's important to bear in mind that there are actually reasons most users prefer to call Silent Hunter and other simulators a 'sim' rather than a 'game' (though obviously sims are games and 'serious gaming' is a thing), foremost among which I believe is a significant difference in what the users derive enjoyment from: a concrete and immersive historic learning experience more akin to a the enjoyment of reading a book rather than just the leisurely challenge and sense of accomplishment games designed primarily to entertain do.

Though I think it's funny that you find the difficulty of Silent Hunter "perverse". Personally I wish the in-game GUI/HUD were almost entirely done away with and almost all player input made via the appropriate buttons, switches, dials, and machinery in the actual sub model; thus requiring the user to gain better understanding of the actual technical operation of the subs as well as crew procedure. YMMV

[Ludwig van Hursh]

Sorry you didn't like the game bro.

In terms of convoys I feel you aren't conducting your attack right or stealthily. The way I always attack convoys is by finding its direction with hydrophones (when you get RADAR its super easy) and determine its direction then use my superior speed to get ahead of it, submerge (usually at 80ft), remain silent, and wait for them to come to me. If you position yourself right you will be inside the escort and they won't detect you until it's too late.

[Harmsway!]

Didn't even make a month. I suppose he's long gone by now.

[Julhelm]

He would probably have had more fun with a less complex Aces of the Deep-type game.

[jaxa]

He would probably have had more fun with a less complex Aces of the Deep-type game.

+1 :up:

I've been reading posts from jorgegonzalito when he tried to play SH3, SH4+OM and SH4 as American Captain. The problem is (IMHO) that he was playing these games too short for having proper experiences and he expected many victories too fast, as soon as possible. That is not the way he should go. Key words for having fun with this type of games is patience and experience - like in real world during WWII. Let's look for time of access to this forum majority of users and compare it to jorgegonzalito's access. He should play much longer before saying definitly good bye to Silent Hunter series.

The better way for him is to find simpler, less complex game, not simulator, but rather torpedo shooter, only based on WWII history.

Jorge, try SH3/SH4 again, it's worth to do it and you will find fun with that if you change your mind a bit.
Stay here, it's one of the best game forums all over the internet, with many fantastic people involving to these games.

[Fearless]

Simulation gives you realism whether good or bad but at the end of the day, you adapt and make it what it is.. That's why we have awesome great modders that make the sim what it is today.. I still tremble every time a destroyer passes overhead and drops a few DCs.

Than there's the adrenalin, frustration, patience that comes with it especially when you are constantly chased for over 3 hours real time and playing the cat and mouse game.

A game will always be a game but you make what it is yourself.

Don't give up.. Place yourself in the conning tower, turn on the gramophone, close your eyes and transport yourself back into time and pretend what it would be like if you were aboard a sub in the 1940s.

I love it. :rock:

[Rockin Robbins]

Even in stock form, Silent Hunter 3 and 4 are way too deep and too rich to mine in a month. If they were easy they wouldn't be worth doing. We do these things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

Blame the game is the cheap way out of learning something that will change your understanding of submarine warfare in WWII. These simulations teach concepts that no book, no movie, no documentary can teach. They are worth the committment.

[AVGWarhawk]

I like Super Mario Brothers.

[CCIP]

Likewise, I'm sorry to see you go since you've asked some good questions and started some interesting discussions :yep:


I kind of wonder what you were expecting from Silent Hunter games though - I think the irony is that the difficulty, tension, and sheer obstacles that the game forces you to overcome is the reason most of us old-timers play it. Where there is need for patience and overcoming frustration, time investment and constant risk of failure, there is a much greater reward for the player when it comes to accomplishment. Instant gratification is fun - for a couple of days. And soon you move on anyway. Yet as I even look at the posters in this thread, many of us have been playing SH3 for more than 10 years and SH4 for nearly 9, so that should tell you something about the rewards and the experience. And even if some of us don't constantly play the game nowadays, we stay around the forums because we have really strong memories of rewarding experiences in Silent Hunter. And almost always, they were rewarding precisely because the game made us learn and work for them. This is true of most simulations.

It is a usual problem of the "learning curve" of course, but there's also always personal preference, so I do wish you luck in finding something that is more rewarding for you :up:

[jaxa]

Nothing else is need to say, CCIP said everything about the problem.

[ColonelSandersLite]

I think the irony is that the difficulty, tension, and sheer obstacles that the game forces you to overcome is the reason most of us old-timers play it

I chose to play silent hunter and play the other hard games, not because they are easy, but because they are hawwwd. ;)

[Rockin Robbins]

Ich bin ein Berliner. Ouch. Broke my tongue saying that with a Hawv'd accent.

[jorgegonzalito]

I did not think that my departure would motivate many messages, thank you for your kindness. Some say that the time I spent Silent Hunter was very short, and so my opinion is not valid when compared to those who spent years playing. I have been absolutely honest and I said what I feel. Some of you have read my comments, objections and questions, and know that I have made a thorough analysis of the many shortcomings of the game that some have emerged recognized as valid. There are those who love this game and have idealized to the point of ignoring the many flaws that it has. That feeling may not leave them room for objectivity. I talked about the perverse mentality of the game, it's easy to tell if it is analyzed objectively. Certain events that occur during a war mission demonstrated to us airplanes fully in flames are flying, attacking and throwing bombs? Destroyers sailing at normal speed and suddenly shoot out like a speedboat?, who are detained or sail slowly, leaving at full speed only when we press the shutter button torpedo? come on guys! These and many other "bloopers" game show us that Ubisoft has seen us face fools!

[Crannogman]

I did not think that my departure would motivate many messages, thank you for your kindness. Some say that the time I spent Silent Hunter was very short, and so my opinion is not valid when compared to those who spent years playing. I have been absolutely honest and I said what I feel. Some of you have read my comments, objections and questions, and know that I have made a thorough analysis of the many shortcomings of the game that some have emerged recognized as valid. There are those who love this game and have idealized to the point of ignoring the many flaws that it has. That feeling may not leave them room for objectivity. I talked about the perverse mentality of the game, it's easy to tell if it is analyzed objectively. Certain events that occur during a war mission demonstrated to us airplanes fully in flames are flying, attacking and throwing bombs? Destroyers sailing at normal speed and suddenly shoot out like a speedboat?, who are detained or sail slowly, leaving at full speed only when we press the shutter button torpedo? come on guys! These and many other "bloopers" game show us that Ubisoft has seen us face fools!

I think the answer is that all of us got mods to fix those problems. I don't think I played more than a day or two before downloading some mods to make it better.

[Armistead]

I played it years ago, didn't come to the forum, didn't mod...and maybe lasted a few months. Found the forum, mods and started enjoying it. It certainly isn't a game you learn every aspect in a few weeks. The fact that I played it for years is because learning it in many ways is like a slow process that one would go through learning sub warfare. It's far from perfect, but if you take the time, the mods make it great and you can fine tune mods to suit your play.

[Fish40]

I chose to play silent hunter and play the other hard games, not because they are easy, but because they are hawwwd. ;)


Col. Sanders, miss your video "let's plays". What happened?

[Rockin Robbins]

I did not think that my departure would motivate many messages, thank you for your kindness. Some say that the time I spent Silent Hunter was very short, and so my opinion is not valid when compared to those who spent years playing. I have been absolutely honest and I said what I feel. Some of you have read my comments, objections and questions, and know that I have made a thorough analysis of the many shortcomings of the game that some have emerged recognized as valid. There are those who love this game and have idealized to the point of ignoring the many flaws that it has. That feeling may not leave them room for objectivity. I talked about the perverse mentality of the game, it's easy to tell if it is analyzed objectively. Certain events that occur during a war mission demonstrated to us airplanes fully in flames are flying, attacking and throwing bombs? Destroyers sailing at normal speed and suddenly shoot out like a speedboat?, who are detained or sail slowly, leaving at full speed only when we press the shutter button torpedo? come on guys! These and many other "bloopers" game show us that Ubisoft has seen us face fools!
You confuse eyecandy, which is meaningless, with gameplay. Yes, you can sink ships with no holes in their hulls, submerge with a huge hole in the submarine, the wrong planes fly the wrong way...if you're obsessed with eyecandy you can find much to complain about. But eyecandy is absolutely meaningless. The gameplay is what's important.

You have no business looking at airplanes anyway in a submarine. You should never see them. They should never see you. Therefore they will not "throw bombs" or attack. Destroyers are not targets anyway, except for dire emergencies. Again, you are not supposed to be chasing them and they are not worthy of wasting a torpedo on unless you absolutely must shoot to save your life. Maybe it's worth a single shot if you find one stopped or at anchor.

You are not objective because you base your entire view of the game on inconsequential items.

A real Japanese destroyer at 35 to 40 knots WAS a speedboat, traveling at about twice the maximum speed of your submarine. They were deadly accurate shots from 4000 yards, often hitting their target on the second or third shot. Even without radar, they had amazing night detection abilities. Some of these difficulties are not modeled in the game. Even if you had them dead in the sights and shot them dead center with a torpedo, most likely it would pass hamlessly below the keel.

You have a recognition manual that contains every ship on the Pacific Ocean with no exceptions. The real guys only had a small percentage of the targets they found and when they DID identify them they tended to do it wrong.

I would strongly argue that the difficulties in the game, although they are different, leave us with a much easier task than the real submariners faced, especially if we are not playing with Trigger Maru Overhauled.

I was sighted and bombed by a plane. I don't fight planes, I just continued the dive and paid him no heed--staying on the surface has no payoff when you are under attack--and then shot a video on Airplane Avoidance. I'm mixing the sound now and the video will be up on You Tube soon, showing avoiding over a dozen planes, never dropping time compression below 8x except when it automatically drops upon detection. You'll see how I never see a plane, never go to bridge view, never use the periscope, can surface without looking around or using radar with perfect safety and run most of the time on 1024x time compression. Airplanes are not a danger factor in Silent Hunter 4. And all the while I'm being swarmed by planes alerted by my sighting. Often I don't even have to dive. Often when I do I never go as deep as periscope depth.

You can do it too. Nothing special about my abilities. I'll bet the majority of SH4 skippers are more coordinated than I am. I'll bet you are. And you can easily coexist with swarms of airplanes looking to bomb your carcass and turn you into fish food.

But it takes persistence and refusing to latch onto excuses. Flying flaming planes are an excuse. Destroyers moving quickly out of the way is an excuse. Claiming to be objective isn't even true, and it too is an excuse. Try Borderlands 2 and see how realistic that is. This is a simulation. It demands organization, discipline, persistence, patience. It takes no prisoners, accepts no excuses and gives none.

[Sailor Steve]

There are those who love this game and have idealized to the point of ignoring the many flaws that it has. That feeling may not leave them room for objectivity.
On the other hand many of us recognize the flaws and have been discussing them for years. Some others have done what they can to fix those flaws. We all play the game for different reasons, so I can't speak for anybody else, but I love ships and play because it's the closest I'll ever get to being on a World War Two submarine. I live with the flaws, not because I lack objectivity, but because I have no choice. Until someone comes up with a way to fix the few remaining problems I can either ignore them or, as you choose to do, not play. After that my choices are to go back to SH1, which I still do sometimes, or not play at all. Since SH4 is the only modern game involving U.S. submarines in WW2, I choose to keep playing.

Destroyers sailing at normal speed and suddenly shoot out like a speedboat?
Yes, destroyers do accelerate unnaturally quickly. So do merchants. So does my submarine. It's something we've discussed here many times, and some people have tried to fix it. There has been some success, but not as much as I would like. Unfortunately that puts us right back to making the same choice: fix it, live with it, or don't play. Since I can't fix it and I want to play I have to live with it. You choose not to. I can respect that.

[Havan_IronOak]

You have no business looking at airplanes anyway in a submarine. You should never see them. They should never see you. ...

I was sighted and bombed by a plane. I don't fight planes, I just continued the dive and paid him no heed--staying on the surface has no payoff when you are under attack--and then shot a video on Airplane Avoidance. I'm mixing the sound now and the video will be up on You Tube soon, showing avoiding over a dozen planes, never dropping time compression below 8x except when it automatically drops upon detection. You'll see how I never see a plane, never go to bridge view, never use the periscope, can surface without looking around or using radar with perfect safety and run most of the time on 1024x time compression. Airplanes are not a danger factor in Silent Hunter 4. And all the while I'm being swarmed by planes alerted by my sighting. Often I don't even have to dive. Often when I do I never go as deep as periscope depth.



I look forward to that you-tube video. I'm just starting a new career and am transporting a VIP from Manila to Java.

I encountered a four carrier task force on December 20, 1941, and yes, I sank one of their fuel tankers (missed a carrier by this much...) It's now December 25th and I've been heading south ever since. I've usually got from 1 to 10 planes within radar range. I've tried running submerged a bit but mostly decks awash when planes are near enough to spot me and surfaced at other times. I'm almost never able to get time compression up to 1024. Nice quiet times let me get to 512 before another gnat appears on radar on an intercepting course. I've tried various courses but the seas between Borneo and Celebes don't give a lot of room to maneuver.

At first, learning plane avoidance felt like an accomplishment but I'm kinda ready to dive at dawn and only run at night until I get to Java. I spent 6 real time hours trying to "do it the right way." I'm just now getting south of the straits between Borneo and Celebes.

[ColonelSandersLite]

Col. Sanders, miss your video "let's plays". What happened?

HD Crash. I talked about it in the next video I put up (Stronghold 3). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3r5kuND1Fs&index=1&list=PLVGYaJkn6lL4bCu-3GF1Tkfwm3snVJE7D Check at about 0:55.

[Rockin Robbins]

I look forward to that you-tube video. I'm just starting a new career and am transporting a VIP from Manila to Java.

I encountered a four carrier task force on December 20, 1941, and yes, I sank one of their fuel tankers (missed a carrier by this much...) It's now December 25th and I've been heading south ever since. I've usually got from 1 to 10 planes within radar range. I've tried running submerged a bit but mostly decks awash when planes are near enough to spot me and surfaced at other times. I'm almost never able to get time compression up to 1024. Nice quiet times let me get to 512 before another gnat appears on radar on an intercepting course. I've tried various courses but the seas between Borneo and Celebes don't give a lot of room to maneuver.

At first, learning plane avoidance felt like an accomplishment but I'm kinda ready to dive at dawn and only run at night until I get to Java. I spent 6 real time hours trying to "do it the right way." I'm just now getting south of the straits between Borneo and Celebes.
You're probably early enough in the war that you don't have radar yet. That makes it tougher. My video is in 1942 with radar in the Gilbert Islands.

A couple of pointers for non-radar boats. First of all your crew is going to spot planes well before you can. Try finding a plane after they announce it. It's almost impossible.

Then it's vital that you locate your crewmen with the sharpest eyesight and put them in the lookout slots. Makes tons of difference! Crash dives will be necessary when you don't have radar. The stern doesn't go under until your crew announces 40 feet. Crank in some rudder then to get off the line the plane will be bombing. Throttle back to ahead slow, press P for periscope depth. You'll overshoot and come back up.

Pop up the periscope and look at the nav map to see if anything's close enough to worry about. Might as well use the nav map because your crew can see 'em better than you can using the scope directly. They can see you well in the daytime if they're within 5 miles. But you can't see them that far away. If the sky is clear, go ahead and surface.

No radar is an imperfect system. Close calls are guaranteed. Everything changes when you get radar, and that's what my video will be about.

Just as a clue/teaser, when you have radar, crash dives are a thing of the past, as is using full throttle. You don't ever touch the throttle. You can go to radar depth to look around when surfacing but it's just a waste of battery most of the time. You can just pop back up without looking at all in perfect safety, at least as perfect safety is defined in a war zone.:D

My sound is recorded on a separate track because of the silliness of USB microphones. I forgot to pause the video (but did pause the sound) when I had to answer a phone in the middle of the video so I have a slice of video to cut out (game was paused) to keep the sound synchronized.

So the video's in the virtual can and only the technical mumbo-jumbo needs to be done. Should have it tonight. Hope you enjoy the result.

[ColonelSandersLite]

Any simulator also has the configuration of realism, a tool to select the level of difficulty: low, medium, high, Silent Hunter does not. An inexperienced player may become demoralized by having from the very beginning the disadvantages that the game poses you at all times.

I have made a thorough analysis of the many shortcomings of the game

If you don't even know that the game has multiple difficulty settings that can be configured, your analysis is clearly not that thorough. This, and a great many of the questions you have asked seem to me to be clearly under the domain of "read the fine manual". While I have never looked for them, I will admit that I have never seen many user created spanish language resources for the silent hunter series and this may be part of the problem. Still, it was probably best said by the many here who said simulations probably just aren't your thing. Go for something that's a little less realistic and more action orientated.



@RR
Would I be correct in guessing that your video is going to have a focus on aircraft avoidance with map contacts enabled? The tactics you have to use are way different when you're playing without.

As to the microphone thing, I've learned doing the LP thing that it's better to have the microphone recording separate anyways. First, the buffering of the video recording ends up causing a synchronization problem where the microphone input lags behind the game output. Second, when the audio is on separate tracks, you can benefit from noise removal filters, ducking filters, and manually editing the voice track to remove coughs and such. It's more work, but the final result is way better quality. If you're interested, I can upload something demonstrating the quality difference.

[Rockin Robbins]

@RR
Would I be correct in guessing that your video is going to have a focus on aircraft avoidance with map contacts enabled? The tactics you have to use are way different when you're playing without.
Yes, I have map contacts enabled for realism. Not having map contacts enabled and not having radar screens which can be read with the accuracy that the real subs read their large radar screens means that using radar with map contacts not enabled is analogous to driving a car with a paper bag over your head listening to your passenger for directions.

Sure, it's difficult and if you can do it congratulations, (I think...) but there is no realism there at all. Our nav map can only render accurate to one pixel, with no interpolation so our radar positions plotted on the map are less accurate than the analog readout from a large radar screen anyway. They had distance overlays to read precise numbers from a screen that we can only look at and say "There's something out there." So we're nerfed for sure, plus visual is seriously subpar compared to reality. I think that map contacts on is the best reality we can muster in an imperfect game so long as your sub has radar. If your sub doesn't have radar there are no decent options that give you the same difficulty as the real thing. Admiral Fluckey in Thunder Below tells of visually following planes around from the bridge, leisurely seeing if they are a problem and diving only when necessary. That's just not on the menu in SH4. Even with map contacts on we're seriously screwed with no option but panic on very first sighting of one of the buggers.

You'll see how I work it in the video. Gotta get to work on it now!:up:

I'm using Audacity for sound and Microsoft Movie Maker and VirtualDub for video and mixing audio and video. No music in the video but that wouldn't be difficult, just time consuming. Don't know how everyone puts recognizable music in their videos and gets away with it but I get copyright infringements whenever I do even if I credit everybody in the universe and link to somewhere to buy the music.

[ColonelSandersLite]

While it varies by resolution, at 1080p the size of a pixel on the nav map at max zoom is about 3.5 feet (feet, not yards, that's substantially more accurate than a high quality modern GPS), and 11 yards when zoomed out 3 levels. Historical SJ radar set accuracy was about 25 yards or so (varies by range and conditions). Considering that with map contacts on, all targets are literally plotted accurately to within a pixel (again, just a few feet), I just don't know what basis you're using to say that the nav map is actually less accurate than historical conditions.

Now, if you want to make an argument that map contacts on is more realistic due to labor division, fine, maybe. If you want to say that map contacts on is more realistic in the stock version with no radar mods, that's absolutely correct, but mods fixed that a *long* time ago. But saying that map contacts on is still less accurate than the real thing is a little out there. Especially coming from a guy that once told me that making some torpedo tables accurate to within a tenth of a degree was overkill, though just rounding to the nearest degree works out to an error of 25 yards at 3,000 yards (a distance I routinely shoot from) and you can't average out the error of a shot.

As an aside, experimentation has shown my plotting accuracy to be such that I know a targets course and speed to within a degree and 1/10 knot. I would say that's sufficient, considering I rarely miss.

The only thing I really wish I had with map contacts off is a range from the SD radar set, though they weren't actually directional. The best you could get from them was whether an aircraft was coming or going.

I will fully admit that I do often play with map contacts on when I have radar and I'm feeling lazy. Sometimes, I just feel like it's just more work than I'm willing to put into the game at that moment and it is just a game.



Re Videos, I wasn't talking about music. Just things you can do to improve quality when the game track and commentary track are kept recorded separately. It really is the best option.

[Rockin Robbins]

Well as you will see I'm never anywhere near zoomed in. I'd love to compare notes on video production since I 'm just a noob at that. Here's the new video--warts and all. Hope you enjoy it. .Airplane Avoidance with Radar Tutorial (https://youtu.be/Hidf8p64_CE)

[Crannogman]

Well as you will see I'm never anywhere near zoomed in. I'd love to compare notes on video production since I 'm just a noob at that. Here's the new video--warts and all. Hope you enjoy it. .Airplane Avoidance with Radar Tutorial (https://youtu.be/Hidf8p64_CE)

Is it your usual procedure to keep the telegraph at "standard" while submerged? I assume that was merely for convenience in the video

[TorpX]

Yes, destroyers do accelerate unnaturally quickly. So do merchants. So does my submarine. It's something we've discussed here many times, and some people have tried to fix it. There has been some success, but not as much as I would like.

-Ahem.

The acceleration thing has been mentioned several times. It has been fixed - very well, imho. If this is what is keeping people from enjoying SH4, they should load up an appropriate version of Improved Ship Physics (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=cat&id=6) and say good-by to the cartoonish acceleration they have suffered with till now.

That is not to say that most of SH4's flaws have been fixed, or are even fixable, but the mind-boggling acceleration has been fully dealt with. I even posted all the math/techniques used in case someone didn't like my version, or wanted to try to import a version to SH3.

Sorry for the OT detour, but people keep talking about this and I want to correct the record. :arrgh!:





As for the general playability/desirability of SH:
.... because it's the closest I'll ever get to being on a World War Two submarine

I think this puts it quite well. :yep:

[Haukka81]

I find that SH4 1.5v very good game and with unofical patch GFO 1.1 its great game.

Sure There are some minor things that could be better but in general it is very, very good submarine sim.

Its miracle that There is any more companies that make simulations.. People are never happy with anything..

Just look dcs forums example, lots of moaning and whine there :/

[Rockin Robbins]

Is it your usual procedure to keep the telegraph at "standard" while submerged? I assume that was merely for convenience in the video
Good question. Because in the game it's easy to have the throttle high and forget about it, burning up all your fuel, which would be impossible in real life, I always leave the throttle alone when I submerge during aircraft avoidance drill. I'm using up such minimal amounts of battery while playing jack-in-the-box and I'm recharged very quickly once I surface. I'm not down long enough that it matters what my speed is for the purposes of ground made good.

Therefore I never crash dive, because that automatically advances the throttle to ahead emergency, and I don't touch the throttle. The technique which is most error tolerant is the best. Keep it simple as possible and you won't screw the pooch. That's on a plaque over my bunk.:D

[Rockin Robbins]

Improved Ship Physics (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=cat&id=6)blah, blah, blah.... Sorry for the OT detour, but people keep talking about this and I want to correct the record. :arrgh!:Sorry that's dead on topic. I regret to inform you that you are in the clear.:D

Question: there are three ship physics mods that I'm aware of, Webster's, Nisgeis' and yours. Both Webster's and Nisgeis' I've tested and saw that they kept convoys from traveling together in a natural way, opening up the ship spacing and having as many or more bad effects than good ones. Is yours different in that regard? I'd be glad to post some time lapse videos I made of the two other mods. I have never seen yours before now so can't say anything about it. My methodology was to load up my Convoy from Hell mission and watch the convoy when I alert some of them. It was quite comical with the ship physics mods.

Up until now I've chosen the known defects, considering that they properly make targets harder to hit and we've nerfed the targeting process in the game giving us too high odds of a hit compared to reality anyway. I've accepted that even if the defects are different from real life they contribute to reality by making our lives a living hell....just like real life!:rotfl2:

Just watched my own video for the first time, a painful process, and noticed that my voice volume could use some boost toward the end of the video. Because of the perverse way You Tube works I can't edit the video offline and leave the links unchanged. I'll screw with it, repost and change all the links at a future time.

[Haukka81]

-Ahem.

The acceleration thing has been mentioned several times. It has been fixed - very well, imho. If this is what is keeping people from enjoying SH4, they should load up an appropriate version of Improved Ship Physics (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=cat&id=6) and say good-by to the cartoonish acceleration they have suffered with till now.

That is not to say that most of SH4's flaws have been fixed, or are even fixable, but the mind-boggling acceleration has been fully dealt with. I even posted all the math/techniques used in case someone didn't like my version, or wanted to try to import a version to SH3.

Sorry for the OT detour, but people keep talking about this and I want to correct the record. :arrgh!:





As for the general playability/desirability of SH:


I think this puts it quite well. :yep:




Your mod is great, but please make lite version for stock 1.5 , only better ship/sub physics .. Nothing more.

There is many that wont like to use tmo or Rsrd or dont like to get extra things here and there.


-haukka81

[ColonelSandersLite]

Question: there are three ship physics mods that I'm aware of, Webster's, Nisgeis' and yours. Both Webster's and Nisgeis' I've tested and saw that they kept convoys from traveling together in a natural way, opening up the ship spacing and having as many or more bad effects than good ones. Is yours different in that regard? I'd be glad to post some time lapse videos I made of the two other mods. I have never seen yours before now so can't say anything about it. My methodology was to load up my Convoy from Hell mission and watch the convoy when I alert some of them. It was quite comical with the ship physics mods.

I would really like to know the answer to that as well. My experience was that the AI just couldn't handle the changes made by the other two.

[ColonelSandersLite]

Well as you will see I'm never anywhere near zoomed in. I'd love to compare notes on video production since I 'm just a noob at that. Here's the new video--warts and all. Hope you enjoy it. .Airplane Avoidance with Radar Tutorial (https://youtu.be/Hidf8p64_CE)


I suggest you start a new thread for that video and subsequent discussion.

[merc4ulfate]

Yeah nothing we haven't seen or heard before jorge.


I'm sure Pinky Kennedy would have loved to have had you on board.:wah:

I feel many would benefit their playing time by having Improved Ship Physics 2.6 ...

Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157

1_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
1_TMO_25_small_patch
RSRDC_TMO_V502
RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1
Improved Ship Physics 2.6_TMO_RSRDC
TMO_Visuals_for_RSRDC
FJB_Navigation_Maps
FJB Color Navigation Map
Gyoraitei
11 New Ships + Yamato AA Fix by Miner1436
Ship pack 1
SMALLER SEA PLANTS SMALL
SMALLER SEABED ROCKS
#5 Depthcharge Sound
#2 Other Clouds
Webster's Eliminate Floating Plankton for v1.4 and v1.5
Aircraft_reflections
Hull_Numbers
TMO Smoke Mod
Classe_Balao_CamoTri
MAP_TABLE_MOD_1,3
TMO+RSRDC missions pack

[Rockin Robbins]

I suggest you start a new thread for that video and subsequent discussion.
Already done in my Sub Skippers Bag of Tricks thread. I treated it here because people were talking about it and expressing interest.

[TorpX]

Sorry that's dead on topic. I regret to inform you that you are in the clear.:D

Question: there are three ship physics mods that I'm aware of, Webster's, Nisgeis' and yours. Both Webster's and Nisgeis' I've tested and saw that they kept convoys from traveling together in a natural way, opening up the ship spacing and having as many or more bad effects than good ones. Is yours different in that regard?

About the convoys, I really couldn't say. Most of my testing was with individual subs/ships and some final tests of a convoy plowing through waves at 13m/s levels. I haven't seen any convoys in my own play sessions. :-?

I suspect spacing deviations or collisions might happen in battle. I consider it more important to have the individual units work right than to worry over much about convoys. Any realistic physics treatment will inevitably affect convoys somehow; we are starting from a totally unrealistic baseline, after all.

If ships are spaced close together, or they are forced to attempt tight turns, they could have trouble (that happened in RL, too). The solution to that is probably to fix the convoy routes/spacing.

You should try it yourself and see if you like it.

[Rockin Robbins]

I will. I just have to load up TMO/RSRDC again as I'm on a GFO cruise to make videos and reacquaint myself with the game. I'm more interested in helping beginners than old salts because old salts are set in their ways (heck, they're already having fun), while beginners are searching for ways to win in what appears to be an unwinnable simulation. It's fun to watch someone go from "there's no way to survive in this game" to "I sank 40k tons my last cruise!" It's fun to see people stay with and enjoy SH4 who would have quit in disgust.

But I'll load it up and take some time lapse of the Convoy from Hell mission after I shoot a couple of torpedoes in the middle of the convoy and before. And I'll post the same results from Webster's mod (still have that for sure) and maybe, if I can find it, from Nisgeis' mod. I remember that I wasn't satisfied with either but don't remember the details.

[Rockin Robbins]

As luck would have it the first test I found was Jrex's Ship Acceleration Physics, developed for inclusion in RFB. Here's the test (https://youtu.be/fqNkKPRDgi0), easily duplicated. I had remembered wrongly and thought it way by Nisgeis, not Jrex. It looks like Webster's Ship Maneuvering Fix is included in GFO, which I'm running now.

Edit: I'm reshooting the Webster Ship Maneuvering Fix video and trying to make it as identical to the Jrex test as possible.

[Rova]

I too have played SH4 on and off for many years (currently back at it) but have always kept it on my hard drive. This website/forum has proven to be a very valuable resource to me filled with useful information and many knowledgeable people that are willing to help others. Thanks to all.

[20000 Leagues]

I can understand your frustration with this game! I've been playing SH3 for some time and only recently started playing SH4. I've tried different mods to make the game better and in the end, I can't stand SH4. I wish I'd never wasted my time or money on it. Back to SH3 for me.

[ColonelSandersLite]

I I've been playing SH3 for some time and only recently started playing SH4. I've tried different mods to make the game better and in the end, I can't stand SH4.

What about it specifically? I play both and nearly every flaw in SH4 is also in 3. Not only that, but 3 is a bit cruder in places and sometimes I find it to be really annoying. I just really wish that h.sie would give sh4 some exe patch love.

[20000 Leagues]

What about it specifically? I play both and nearly every flaw in SH4 is also in 3. Not only that, but 3 is a bit cruder in places and sometimes I find it to be really annoying. I just really wish that h.sie would give sh4 some exe patch love.

SH3 does seem crude in some ways compared to SH4, but there are mods that make up for it. I think modders need to give SH4 the love that SH3 has received.

Things I didn't like right off the bat;

1. Obstructions on the bridge the prevented me from seeing 180.
2. Lousy instruments that take away from the "feel" of the boat.
3. The clutter on my nav map.
4. The cheesy star where my objective was.
5. Ships wouldn't show up on my battle map (made close quarters fights with DD's difficult).
6. The watch crew would announce aircraft, but not the direction they were coming from (made it hard to turn the boat in the optimal direction).
7. That same crew would (maybe) announce warships spotted, but again not where they spotted them.
8. Crappy spray off the bow.
9. Not crazy about the targeting set up.
10. Don't feel like the odds are against me (not the game's fault).


Now, it's not all bad. There were things I liked about the game. Maybe I just need more than a day to overcome the "this isn't SH3" feeling. Perhaps I could try some other mods. I'll get back to you on it.

[ColonelSandersLite]

SH3 does seem crude in some ways compared to SH4, but there are mods that make up for it.

Not the things that I found annoying, at least not to my knowledge. The stopwatch pegs at a 1 hour. Having to use the dumb repeater clock instead of having a stopwatch you can use in literally every screen. The charting system feels substantially clunkier. No native widescreen. The godawful crew management system. Things like that. Don't get me wrong, I really like SH3, but it just hasn't aged well in places.


1: TMO and, I believe really every major mod pack, unlocks the camera. You can literally walk around the obstruction.
2: Not sure what you mean. If it's just the styling, they are based on styles used by very different navies, so of course they look different.
3: While I agree that the tools system of SH4 adds some clutter, I like having actual tools you can interface with over the phantom dropdown of sh3. Besides, with widescreen, you probably have just as much real estate with the tools in sh4 as you did in sh3 with 4:3.
5: Turn on map contacts under realism.
6 & 7: I agree, it's annoying. You can mostly work around it easily by either asking the crew for the nearest visual contact or by turning on map contacts so you can see them on the map. Also, you'll get radar pretty quickly in the war, so you'll know where the contacts are long before the watch crew can see them anyways.
9: The American TDC is honestly better than the German one once you know how to use it. The only thing I like about the German setup over the US setup is the way the AOB is linked to periscope bearing. I feel certain that the German setup allows me to engage multiple targets more rapidly. On the other hand, the German boats don't have enough peak firepower for the advantage to really shine so it feels like sort of a moot point. Oh, also automatic spread angles, but it's not a huge deal to me.
4 & 8: are really splitting hairs though.


If you're a sh3 vet and want some challenge, I'm guessing that you'll probably be best served by TMO. It tends to lean towards making things difficult.

[Sailor Steve]

While I agree that the tools system of SH4 adds some clutter, I like having actual tools you can interface with over the phantom dropdown of sh3.
It's funny how people differ. When I first played SH4 I too found the tools on the table annoying. I've come to appreciate them so much that these days I use the 'SH4 Map Tools for SH3' mod.

[20000 Leagues]

The godawful crew management system.

Have to agree with that. That's likely THE one greatest annoyance for me in SH3. It does get better as the crew gains experience. But it goes against my theory of how skippering a sub should be. IMHO, the skipper shouldn't micro manage every detail of the boat. There are Petty Officers or even the XO that can manage shift changes. GWX 8-hour makes the whole thing a little more manageable.



6 & 7: I agree, it's annoying. You can mostly work around it easily by either asking the crew for the nearest visual contact or by turning on map contacts so you can see them on the map. Also, you'll get radar pretty quickly in the war, so you'll know where the contacts are long before the watch crew can see them anyways.Good to know.

9: The American TDC is honestly better than the German one once you know how to use it. The only thing I like about the German setup over the US setup is the way the AOB is linked to periscope bearing. I feel certain that the German setup allows me to engage multiple targets more rapidly. On the other hand, the German boats don't have enough peak firepower for the advantage to really shine so it feels like sort of a moot point. Oh, also automatic spread angles, but it's not a huge deal to me.It may be for longer shots. I'll have to play with it more. My style when engaging DD's is to bring them in close for a dogfight. So far, I've found the German set up better for fast/close shots. Oddly enough, I started liking SH4 a little more today. I was just off the Japanese coast and got into a dogfight with two DD's. Sunk one, hit one and it tried to get away. I gave chase and rammed four fish up its......um......stern. The only reason I poured so many fish to his stern is because I couldn't keep up and was going to lose him. I couldn't have that!! LOL!! Then I sailed down to about 250 miles off Tokyo and tangled with two more DD's. Cruised around after that and tagged three freighters. Heading home I took down two more freighters with my deck gun. Threw in a half dozen planes and sailed into port feeling pretty good!


4 & 8: are really splitting hairs though.More like nitpicking. I admit, I was just down on the game in general and didn't give it a chance. Shame on me.:oops: I know better and was just tired and feeling a little crusty. Apologies to my fellow skippers.


If you're a sh3 vet and want some challenge, I'm guessing that you'll probably be best served by TMO. It tends to lean towards making things difficult.I'll give that one a try. That was one reason I didn't totally love LSH3. The graphics and overall gameplay was great, but the DD's were more like stray dogs than the bloodhound uber killers in GWX.

Good chatting with you. Cheers!!

[20000 Leagues]

It's funny how people differ. When I first played SH4 I too found the tools on the table annoying. I've come to appreciate them so much that these days I use the 'SH4 Map Tools for SH3' mod.

That's so true. It's what we get used to also I would imagine. If I had started out on SH4, I may have found SH3 minimalist. SH3 was the first "first person" naval game I'd ever played. Historically I've played grand scale strategy games or first person infantry/SpecOps or air combat simulators. I loved SH3 right off in vanilla. Then as I added mods it became the greatest game I'd ever played. I'm a history buff, so playing a game that incorporated real events was right up my alley.

[Ludwig van Hursh]

I personally enjoy SH-4 a more than SH-3 but still love both games. In SH-3 I like the tension where as in SH-4 I feel like I'm more apart of the war as the game seems to make it feel more like that there is an actual war going on by the end patrol briefings or the messages you receive in patrol. Oh I also love the crew interface.

[Webster]

great discussion going on but I think the OP bailed out of this thread way back at post #23

[Rockin Robbins]

I was just off the Japanese coast and got into a dogfight with two DD's. Sunk one, hit one and it tried to get away. I gave chase and rammed four fish up its......um......stern. The only reason I poured so many fish to his stern is because I couldn't keep up and was going to lose him.
Yes, the old "up the poop chute" shot! A leading candidate for the most fun you can have with a DD and some torpedoes.:up::up::up:

[Rockin Robbins]

Okay all and Webster, I've reshot the test of Webster's Ship Maneuvering Fix and this is as incorporated into GFO. The short story is that formations didn't stay together when I wasn't detected but convoy behavior after contact was exemplary. Here's the video (https://youtu.be/2k0zhvxzKDY), meant to duplicate the one on Jrex's mod (https://youtu.be/fqNkKPRDgi0) as closely as possible.

Please keep in mind that this is probably NOT something either modder had in mind when making the mod. Webster, any thoughts?

Torpx, I'm chomping at the bit to try yours but a "typical russian" just comped me a copy of Ironclads American Civil War 2 in return for some videos, so that goes on the front burner for awhile. Hope that's a great game.

I get a bit tired of comparing SH3 to SH4. They're both very well executed games. SH3 suffers from the "don't save unless you are outside of x miles from shore, not within x miles of any targer, on the surface, facing Mecca, saying shalom! and bowing or your career will be trashed" syndrome. Its atmosphere is incomparable, every feature of the game contributing as one to the emotional backdrop. SH4 just doesn't compare with the atmosphere of SH3. But it's a great game, I'd argue the best subsim ever made by just a shade over SH3. But who cares? If you don't own both you're missing something big.

[ColonelSandersLite]

So, I watched RRs video and thought I could swing a fairly realistic test of TorpX's Improved Ship Physics for TMO.

I set up a convoy of 9 merchants in 3X3 formation with 3 escorts, spaced 700m apart (this is what tmo uses).

Results:
They had some trouble holding formation before they detected me.

I fired a torpedo in their general direction from 6000 yards or so to alert them, didn't hit anything but they did go evasive.

They never regained formation.

The wind wipped up a few hours after I surfaced and sank every enemy ship more effectively than I ever could. Some of those ships where pretty large.


I'm sorry TorpX, but that's not a mod I could recommend to anybody.

[merc4ulfate]

... and then there is reality.

"Task Force 38 (TF 38) had been operating about 300 mi (260 nmi; 480 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea conducting air raids against Japanese airfields in the Philippines. The fleet was attempting to refuel its ships, especially the lighter destroyers, which had limited fuel carrying capacity. As the weather worsened it became increasingly difficult to refuel, and the attempts had to be discontinued. Despite warning signs of worsening conditions, the ships of the fleet remained in their stations. Worse, the information given to Halsey about the location and direction of the typhoon was inaccurate. On December 17, Admiral Halsey unwittingly sailed Third Fleet into the heart of the typhoon.

Because of 100 mph (87 kn; 160 km/h) winds, very high seas and torrential rain, three destroyers capsized and sank, and a total of 790 lives were lost. Nine other warships were damaged, and over 100 aircraft were wrecked or washed overboard; the aircraft carrier Monterey was forced to battle a serious fire that was caused by a plane hitting a bulkhead.

USS Tabberer—a small John C. Butler-class destroyer escort—lost her mast and radio antennas. Though damaged and unable to radio for help, she took the initiative to remain on the scene to recover 55 of the 93 total that were rescued. Captain Henry Lee Plage earned the Legion of Merit, while the entire crew earned the Navy's Unit Commendation Ribbon, which was presented to them by Admiral Halsey."

Typhoon Cobra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Cobra_(1944))

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2015/07/USS-Maddox-inCobra-.jpg

USS MADDOX - SURVIVED COBRA STRIKE

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2015/07/USS_Santa_Fe_on_Cobra_.jpg&w=1484

USS SATA FE ROLLS DURING TYPHOON COBRA


[BREAK]

"USS Truxtun (DD-229) and USS Pollux (AKS-2) ran aground during a storm in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, and broke up in surf. 204 killed. 18 Feb. 1942.

USS Warrington (DD-383) sank during hurricane off Florida. 248 drowned. 13 Sep. 1944.

Task Force 38 struck by typhoon off the Philippines. Destroyers USS Hull (DD-350), USS Spence (DD-512), and USS Monaghan (DD-354) capsized and sank, at least 28 other vessels damaged. About 790 killed and 80 injured. 18 Dec. 1944.

Task Force 38 struck by typhoon in Okinawa area. 36 ships damaged. At least 6 killed and 4 injured. 5 Jun. 1945.

Typhoon passes within 15 miles of Okinawa, severely damaging ships in Buckner Bay anchorage. 12 small ships and landing craft sunk, 222 others beached. 36 killed, 47 missing, 100 seriously injured. 11 Oct. 1945."

US NAVY READING ROOM (http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/us-navy-ships-lost-in-selected-storm-weather-related-incidents.html)

[BREAK]

In reality storms at sea are nothing to trifle over. I was aboard a Mine Sweeper in rough seas during my time in the Navy and we had boards ripped off the sides by the wind and wave actions. Even some of the smallest Naval ships are more than sea worthy but in the right conditions and with a storm anything can happen.

In the above sites over 1,325 sailors lost their lives to weather. That is just on the side of the Americans. That is almost the same number of Marines and Army soldiers that died taking Peleliu Island in 1944.

The ships listed above especially those of Task Force 38 were built to handle the seas better than merchant shipping. They had to be because they had to withstand not only the wind and waves of nature but the shelling of the enemy. They still lost to the weather however.

ISP brings a weather related reality to the game that no other mod does. The ship physics and weather related conditions it creates are more realistic than you might think.

What is unrealistic is that I can take out the Musashi and Yamato with 6-8 fish when it took 19 fish and 17 bombs for the Musashi and 11 fish and 6 bombs on the Yamato.

Yes I know people want nice game play and to make it fun so putting things to hard can be a challenge for some, but to others there is more gamesmanship to the challenge so making it harder and more realistic is the well played game they choose.

[ColonelSandersLite]

This wasn't a typhoon. Just a windy day.

Further, just as an example, in typhoon cobra, 3 of about 50 destroyers where sunk. In that test, 3 of 3 where sunk. There's a world of difference between 6% and 100%. Especially when no storm is present.

Even ignoring that, I could not recommend the mod on the basis that convoys are unable to hold formation. Just no...

[TorpX]

So, I watched RRs video and thought I could swing a fairly realistic test of TorpX's Improved Ship Physics for TMO.

.....

The wind wipped up a few hours after I surfaced and sank every enemy ship more effectively than I ever could. Some of those ships where pretty large.


I'm sorry TorpX, but that's not a mod I could recommend to anybody.

Ok, I understand it won't be everybody's cup of tea. I'll just give a quick rundown of the concepts and 'physics' involved.

Also, I must ask did you install and deploy the later 'patch' for the weather? In the patch, you get 2 scene.dat files. One is for 'normal' weather, it will produce what I would call rough, but not really stormy waves. The other is for stormy waves. The idea is that alternating use of these, gives you a more sensible variety of weather, instead of having mostly nice, or mostly bad.

In any case, the weather will be very bad at times. My view is that if winds are at the game's maximum, you shouldn't be able to conduct operations. You should be hanging on, hoping it will subside. Yes, ships will sink with the severest weather. The waves have to be pretty severe in order to have a meaningful effect on your boat. In RL, subs were slowed greatly by bad weather. I wanted to reproduce this.

I did not change the damage/structure of the ships, but did test them to make sure that they could survive 13 m/s winds for 24 hrs. This applies to all of the larger ships, anything like a DD or larger and most merchants. Small ships will be more vulnerable, of course.

I didn't do much in the way of battle testing convoys. I consider it likely they will break up, once shooting starts. But, wouldn't we expect this?

[Joe S]

I have been "playing" with subsims since Sub Battle Simulator, and I agree that it is hard to understand why the latest sub sims lack many of the features found in earlier programs. Sub Battle Simulator had the best overall gameplay, crappy graphics, no sound effects, but the best gameplay. Aces of the deep had the sound of depth charges in the water and a sound man who would announce "Wasserbomben"
SH 1, if I remember right, had the ability to write notes on the map. I do not have the time to list all of the useful features that are missing in SH 3 and 4 which were found in earlier products, but the list is quite lengthy, I assure you. It seems the trend with Sub Sims and flight sims is to put out a half-baked product with flashy graphics and then expect the consumer to either like it or finish it with mods. In the case of SH 3 and 4, you cannot even create mods to fix many of the shortcomings. SH 3 and 4 are good products with carefully selected mods, it just sucks that the consumer has to finish the product. Thank YOU to all the people who have created the mods to make these programs viable.
Joe S

[ColonelSandersLite]

SH 1, if I remember right, had the ability to write notes on the map.

Oh man, I would almost be willing to kill to get this ability in sh 3&4. Anyone who has seen my lp series knows that I'm always using the protractor tool to make notes on target speed and course and other important numbers like that. Without being able to actually label my numbers, I sometimes mix them up and forget what something was though. Not to mention that it's a pain in the ass to label course 325 when the protractor tool only goes up to 180.

One feature I remember from silent service that I miss is that the game would tell you times for sunrise and sunset along with visibility a report. Check out 5:15 to 5:30 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzeFQlSwQT4

That being said, I do understand the reasons for the lack of features, but I'm not going to get into it right now.

[merc4ulfate]

"Anyone who has seen my lp series knows that I'm always using the protractor tool to make notes on target speed and course and other important numbers like that. Without being able to actually label my numbers"

I'd say use a pencil and paper.

By the way convoys hold formation with ISP. I have seen it with Task Force and with convoys and none ever break formation not even once. Since people frequently do not list their mods when commenting no one knows what is what with what people are saying.

Convoys do not break formation with ISP. If they flounder yes some ships will have to manuver around the sticken vessle. A normal maritime procedure and if you do not wish to die a very good procedure.

They will also break formation for one other cause.

DETECTING YOU!



Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157
1_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
1_TMO_25_small_patch
RSRDC_TMO_V502
RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1
Improved Ship Physics 2.6_TMO_RSRDC
FTMO_Visuals_for_RSRDC
GFJB_Navigation_Maps
HFJB Color Navigation Map
IGyoraitei
J11 New Ships + Yamato AA Fix by Miner1436
KShip pack 1
LSMALLER SEA PLANTS SMALL
MSMALLER SEABED ROCKS
N#5 Depthcharge Sound
O#2 Other Clouds
QAircraft_reflections
RHull_Numbers
STMO Smoke Mod
TTMO+RSRDC missions pack
UTABLE MAP 1,3
VClasse_Balao_CamoTri

[Rockin Robbins]

So, I watched RRs video and thought I could swing a fairly realistic test of TorpX's Improved Ship Physics for TMO.

I set up a convoy of 9 merchants in 3X3 formation with 3 escorts, spaced 700m apart (this is what tmo uses).

Results:
They had some trouble holding formation before they detected me.

I fired a torpedo in their general direction from 6000 yards or so to alert them, didn't hit anything but they did go evasive.

They never regained formation.

The wind wipped up a few hours after I surfaced and sank every enemy ship more effectively than I ever could. Some of those ships where pretty large.


I'm sorry TorpX, but that's not a mod I could recommend to anybody.
Oops. Thanks for the test. I'll run one sometime soon. Sounds very similar to the other two. I still look forward to playing with it myself. Great job Colonel.

And not to be too hard on the modders. They didn't even think of convoy behavior when developing and testing their mods. It's just a perfect case of the law of unintended consequences: for every intended change there will be two unintended changes. One of them will be bad.:D

[BaronDeKalb]

cheers mate it's been kind of quiet in this simulation group for a while now.

[ColonelSandersLite]

@merc4ulfate
Pencil and paper is possible, but that's not the point. The idea is that all the tools you need to plot targets should actually be available in the game. Especially something so basic as being able to write.

The convoys *did* have trouble holding formation before they detected me. The result looked a lot like RRs video above in the portion before contact was made. I could make you a video to prove it, but frankly it's a lot of work and I'm busy with other stuff. Take my word for it or not, I don't actually care.

Further, I don't have a problem with them breaking formation on detection. That's fine. I do have a problem with the fact that they are completely unable to regain a cohesive formation afterwards.

The only conflicting mod listed in jsgme is TMO, which was loaded first and is meant to work together. All improved ship physics changes stood on their own merits with no conflicts.

It's just a perfect case of the law of unintended consequences: for every intended change there will be two unintended changes. One of them will be bad.:D

Exactly this. IMHO, attacking convoys is the second most interesting tactical scenario in the game. I would say that this particular area of the simulation is very critical. To that end, from my point of view, broken convoy behavior is a substantial problem and a deal breaker.

[20000 Leagues]

Its atmosphere is incomparable, every feature of the game contributing as one to the emotional backdrop. SH4 just doesn't compare with the atmosphere of SH3. But it's a great game, I'd argue the best subsim ever made by just a shade over SH3. But who cares? If you don't own both you're missing something big.

I think that's the real reason I just can't get into SH4. The whole time I skippered U-boats I felt a certain realistic atmosphere. I loved my IXB, it was my boat, my crew and they were all that mattered. Knowing Germany was going to lose didn't matter and was never thought of. It was all about my boat and crew. I would even come to know almost every crew member on board. No small task on an IXB!

Every mission started in port so I could stand on the bridge as we sailed out to sea, wondering if I'd see port again. Then there was the immense relief as I stood on the bridge sailing into port after a (usually) hard patrol. Sometimes we sailed in happy and the boat in mint condition. Other times I had dead on board and the boat was so battered going to periscope depth would've killed us.

SH3 stumbled onto an intangible atmosphere that hasn't (to my knowledge) been duplicated. Although SH4 is a great game, I just can't get that same immersive feeling.

[Rockin Robbins]

I think that's the real reason I just can't get into SH4. The whole time I skippered U-boats I felt a certain realistic atmosphere. I loved my IXB, it was my boat, my crew and they were all that mattered. Knowing Germany was going to lose didn't matter and was never thought of. It was all about my boat and crew. I would even come to know almost every crew member on board. No small task on an IXB!

Every mission started in port so I could stand on the bridge as we sailed out to sea, wondering if I'd see port again. Then there was the immense relief as I stood on the bridge sailing into port after a (usually) hard patrol. Sometimes we sailed in happy and the boat in mint condition. Other times I had dead on board and the boat was so battered going to periscope depth would've killed us.

SH3 stumbled onto an intangible atmosphere that hasn't (to my knowledge) been duplicated. Although SH4 is a great game, I just can't get that same immersive feeling.
Brotherhood is forged in shared tribulation.

[TorpX]

Okay all and Webster, I've reshot the test of Webster's Ship Maneuvering Fix and this is as incorporated into GFO. The short story is that formations didn't stay together when I wasn't detected but convoy behavior after contact was exemplary. Here's the video (https://youtu.be/2k0zhvxzKDY), meant to duplicate the one on Jrex's mod (https://youtu.be/fqNkKPRDgi0) as closely as possible.

Please keep in mind that this is probably NOT something either modder had in mind when making the mod. Webster, any thoughts?



I just viewed the videos in the links.

While I enjoyed the drama, I wouldn't consider either a fair test of a physics mod.

I'll explain what I mean. First off, we only see the convoys for moments before the action starts. This simply isn't enough time for any judgments to be made. I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that detection occurred very early on, with the sub either being sighted on surface or heard as it dove. Alarms sounded and a few ships started to turn.

Of course, when you start shooting, the convoy gets messy, but this doesn't tell us much we don't already know. There was no attempt made to observe a post attack phase, so we have no idea whether they would rally or split up.

Where were the escorts? The DD's looked to be 'in convoy' rather than escorting the convoy.







If there is a genuine desire to test convoys for this purpose (i.e. convoy station keeping), one needs to observe them for a period of time (perhaps in bad weather), without hostile detection.

Using a stock convoy as a control might be worthwhile.

Then, to test their reactions to attack, I would suggest a surprise torpedo salvo. It would probably be good if only one or two torps are fired to hit. We could then observe evasion and see what the turning, acceleration, deceleration looked like. I wouldn't rely too much on one test, though. It is unlikely you would always see the same results.

After the attack, there should be a fair period of observation (without further attacks) to see rally behavior. This should probably be at least 30 or 45 minutes. I don't see how you could tell much with less than that.


I agree about the mods not being designed with convoys in mind. In fact, if they are judged as precision convoy mods, no physics mod is likely to come out well. The ships are way too maneuverable in stock form, so any realistic physics mod will inevitably "handicap" them to some degree. Saying we want realistic ships physics, and elegant and tight convoys, makes no sense. RL ships would have to fall out or fall behind when bad weather hampered them, propulsion failed, or they suffered attack.



I made a few tests with ISP convoys, where I followed them for 24 hrs. game time, at 32x, pausing now and them to look over the convoy. I had to be on the surface, of course. I set the date to 1940, so I was not hostile, and could follow them closely. The weather was what I would say was at the threshold of being 'severe'. The convoy was about a dozen ships; a good representative sample of merchants, or capitol ships and escorts. They all could maintain station and propulsion, except the small minesweeper, which fell behind after some hours.

There were no collisions or inexplicable behavior. The IJN DD's did seem to nose around me and go wander about (as we would expect escorts to do). One did come very close and almost hit me. I kept the sub on it's predetermined course, and the escort had to reverse engines to keep from plowing into me. Keep in mind that the weather was rough, and this hampered both them and us. I didn't test the convoys turning ability, this was only to test sea-keeping.

[Rockin Robbins]

I just viewed the videos in the links.

While I enjoyed the drama, I wouldn't consider either a fair test of a physics mod.

I'll explain what I mean. First off, we only see the convoys for moments before the action starts. This simply isn't enough time for any judgments to be made. I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that detection occurred very early on, with the sub either being sighted on surface or heard as it dove. Alarms sounded and a few ships started to turn.

Of course, when you start shooting, the convoy gets messy, but this doesn't tell us much we don't already know. There was no attempt made to observe a post attack phase, so we have no idea whether they would rally or split up.

Where were the escorts? The DD's looked to be 'in convoy' rather than escorting the convoy.


I should have explained. This is a mission, Rockin Robbins Convoy from Hell. That formation spawned in place seconds before we see it and is starting to fall apart by the time we can fly a camera to it. We can't observe it before that time because it didn't exist then. It spawns in perfict alignment.

It would be a decent project to observe it for an hour while it was undetected but the pattern is there. Alignment deteriorates immediately with either of the mods I tested.

Now this is a convoy of armed merchants accompanied by one Asashio DD and a river gunboat. If you play with them you'll find out that the DD and gunboat are not your biggest problem, it's deadeye merchant gunners that will get you usually. The Asashio and gunboat start out at the rear of the convoy.

If there is a genuine desire to test convoys for this purpose (i.e. convoy station keeping), one needs to observe them for a period of time (perhaps in bad weather), without hostile detection.

Using a stock convoy as a control might be worthwhile.Let's do it, with the proviso that none of the physics mods were developed with convoy behavior being one of the effects even dreamed of at the time. I'm sure nobody said "Let's make ships accelerate slower and while we're at it we'll test convoy behavior." I just found it out by accident and thought it was interesting. Then I thought what the ramifications would be.

I propose we make up a more conventional convoy with two colums, three rows of merchies, DDs ahead, behind and two abreast of the convoy. Then we do the tests you propose, undetected behavior for an hour. Should be interesting and I'll start with stock ships.

Then, to test their reactions to attack, I would suggest a surprise torpedo salvo. It would probably be good if only one or two torps are fired to hit. We could then observe evasion and see what the turning, acceleration, deceleration looked like. I wouldn't rely too much on one test, though. It is unlikely you would always see the same results.

After the attack, there should be a fair period of observation (without further attacks) to see rally behavior. This should probably be at least 30 or 45 minutes. I don't see how you could tell much with less than that.Sounds like a battle plan to me! I propose dividing it into two tests, one purely for undetected convoy behavior and another for launching a couple torpedoes and watching the convoy, both tests to last one hour.


I agree about the mods not being designed with convoys in mind. In fact, if they are judged as precision convoy mods, no physics mod is likely to come out well. The ships are way too maneuverable in stock form, so any realistic physics mod will inevitably "handicap" them to some degree. Saying we want realistic ships physics, and elegant and tight convoys, makes no sense. RL ships would have to fall out or fall behind when bad weather hampered them, propulsion failed, or they suffered attack.



I made a few tests with ISP convoys, where I followed them for 24 hrs. game time, at 32x, pausing now and them to look over the convoy. I had to be on the surface, of course. I set the date to 1940, so I was not hostile, and could follow them closely. The weather was what I would say was at the threshold of being 'severe'. The convoy was about a dozen ships; a good representative sample of merchants, or capitol ships and escorts. They all could maintain station and propulsion, except the small minesweeper, which fell behind after some hours.

There were no collisions or inexplicable behavior. The IJN DD's did seem to nose around me and go wander about (as we would expect escorts to do). One did come very close and almost hit me. I kept the sub on it's predetermined course, and the escort had to reverse engines to keep from plowing into me. Keep in mind that the weather was rough, and this hampered both them and us. I didn't test the convoys turning ability, this was only to test sea-keeping.And I agree. There will be a point where we have to say "that's all we can do" and be satisfied with the balance we can achieve. It won't be perfect. I personally would say that acceleration is a more important problem to solve than strict position keeping in a convoy.

Still, it's a fun test and gives us something to keep us off the streets.

[TCD]

I've just started last week SHIV v1.4.

Look's really cool to me. :cool:

To avoid unending and boring transits across the Pacific ocean, don't be based in places like Pearl-Harbor. Start at Manila (Philippine) then relocate to asiatic fleet.

I love sailing in those south-east Asia seas. Having so much islands and shallow waters is just exciting and challenging. Moreover, you got plenty of japs airfields around and a lot of animation and action, along your missions to fullfil.

When I want oceanic Submarine game play, I go to the battle of Atlantic on my SHIII U-boat (I will soon experiment SHV to see how it's looking).

And US WWII subs are so highly developed (lots of torpedoes, cool efficient air and radar systems to be used from the start of the war in 1941, decoys etc...!) with lots of upgrades during the war that it compensates their huge sizes and consequently their very slow diving speed.

And to finish, at any time, when you have completed an obligatory mission the HQ send you (or just simply your initial start patrol mission), DO NOT send a "statut report" radio message, otherwhise the HQ will send you a new mission (sometime cool, sometine boring because, for instance, it's located on the other side of the Pacific). So you can from now on just live your life with your sub and do a lots of your own cool stuff. SHIV is so detailed that it looks to me they're hundreds of cool stuff to do. I've already tons of ideas :03:.

An when you want, just return to your Submarine base and dock in, medals, promotions, upgrades stuff, to get a new patrol and carry on with your cool SHIV Submarine commander career. :)

[Rockin Robbins]

I like the ice cream machine: the genius of the American Submarine and the end of all discussion about which was better, the U-Boats or the American Submarine. Let me squirt a little butterscotch syrup on this ice cream and think deeply about which one I like better.....

[ColonelSandersLite]

If there is a genuine desire to test convoys for this purpose (i.e. convoy station keeping), one needs to observe them for a period of time (perhaps in bad weather), without hostile detection.

Using a stock convoy as a control might be worthwhile.

Then, to test their reactions to attack, I would suggest a surprise torpedo salvo. It would probably be good if only one or two torps are fired to hit. We could then observe evasion and see what the turning, acceleration, deceleration looked like. I wouldn't rely too much on one test, though. It is unlikely you would always see the same results.

After the attack, there should be a fair period of observation (without further attacks) to see rally behavior. This should probably be at least 30 or 45 minutes. I don't see how you could tell much with less than that.

This was my test mission. My thoughts where similar and my test conformed on all points. If you want to run it, you need to wait at a fairly high time compression until the convoy shows up.

[Mission]
MissionType=0
MissionDataType=0
MultiMissionType=0
Year=1945
Month=7
Day=15
Hour=23
Minute=0
Fog=0
FogRand=0
Clouds=0
CloudsRand=0
Precip=0
PrecipRand=0
WindHeading=0
WindSpeed=5.000000
WindRand=0
WeatherRndInterval=5
SeaType=0

[Unit 1]
Name=_US Balao#1
Class=SSBalao
Type=200
Origin=American
Side=1
Commander=1
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19440201
DeleteOnLastWaypoint=false
DockedShip=false
GameEntryDate=19440204
GameEntryTime=0
GameExitDate=19451231
GameExitTime=0
EvolveFromEntryDate=true
Long=-4092790.000000
Lat=3195020.000000
Height=0.000000
Heading=243.167007
Speed=0.000000
CrewRating=4
DelayMin=0
ReportPosMin=-1
ReportPosProbability=100
SecondsUntilReport=-28.048048
HighPrioContact=false
RandStartRadius=0.000000
TacticalUnit=false
AvailStartDate=19380101
AvailEndDate=19451231
NextWP=0

[RndGroup 1]
GroupName=_Group Name
Category=0
CommandEntry=2
Long=-4167872.000000
Lat=3277704.000000
Height=0.000000
DelayMin=60
DelayMinInterv=2880
SpawnProbability=100
RandStartRadius=0.000000
ReportPosMin=-1
ReportPosProbability=100
HighPrioContact=false
Heading=142.360199
Speed=9.000000
ColumnsNo=3
Spacing=700
DeleteOnLastWaypoint=false
CurrentInstanceID=0
GameEntryDate=19450713
GameEntryTime=2300
GameExitDate=19451231
GameExitTime=0
MaxInst=10000
MaxUnitsCreated=100
DockedShip=false
TacticalGroup=false
AvailStartDate=19450801
AvailEndDate=19451231
ControlZoneRadius=100.000000
NextWP=0

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 1]
Type=103
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=0
CfgDate=19450601
No=2
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 2]
Type=101
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=2
CfgDate=19450601
No=2
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 3]
Type=102
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=1
CargoInt=0
CfgDate=19450601
No=1
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 4]
Type=102
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=3
CargoInt=0
CfgDate=19450601
No=1
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 5]
Type=102
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=6
CargoInt=0
CfgDate=19450601
No=1
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 6]
Type=102
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=5
CargoInt=1
CfgDate=19450601
No=1
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 7]
Type=102
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=7
CargoInt=1
CfgDate=19450601
No=1
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.RndUnit 8]
Type=3
Origin=Japan
Side=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19450601
No=3
Escort=true
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=2

[RndGroup 1.Waypoint 1]
Speed=9.000000
Radius=0.000000
Loop=-1
LoopProbability=100
Long=-3923820.000000
Lat=2961251.000000
Height=0.000000

[RndGroup 1.Waypoint 2]
Speed=9.000000
Radius=0.000000
Loop=-1
LoopProbability=100
Long=-5741820.000000
Lat=1706000.000000
Height=0.000000

[RndGroup 1.Waypoint 3]
Speed=9.000000
Radius=0.000000
Loop=-1
LoopProbability=100
Long=-5753820.000000
Lat=4522000.000000
Height=0.000000

[EditorParams]
InitLongOff=19472814080.000000
InitLatOff=-3750462464.000000
ZoomIndex=0
Prefix=

[TorpX]

I should have explained. This is a mission, Rockin Robbins Convoy from Hell.

....
I wasn't sure. I understand that video production has a different goal than mod testing. Probably more fun, too.



This was my test mission. My thoughts where similar and my test conformed on all points. If you want to run it, you need to wait at a fairly high time compression until the convoy shows up. Thanks, but if I decide to do any tests of this sort, I'll create a mission for it. The idea being to get the maximum amount of information, from a minimum amount of effort. I might want to put in some turns. Not sure about that, but from what people have posted, I imagine convoys will have difficulty in this area.



In my previous sea-keeping tests, I used 12 ships (3 columns) in each convoy. One merchant only, one naval only. I felt that limiting it to 12 made it easier to keep track of them.

Oh, about the TC. I am very suspicious of results occurring at high TC. I kept TC within 32x. From what I've seen, the game takes all sorts of shortcuts when we go above 32x.

I suspect that the space between columns could be important, when turning. Not sure what would be an appropriate spacing for a test. Who knows what kind of spacing convoys actually used? Or for that matter, what RSRDC uses?

[ColonelSandersLite]

I'm not sure how creating a mission from scratch is more effort that using an existing testbed mission or just modifing it slightly to fit your needs. It's a standard straight merchant convoy in 3X3 formation with 3 escorts spaced at 700 yards. This is the number used by stock and tmo. Dunno for sure about rsrd.

You misunderstand about the TC. Use TC until the convoy appears on radar (it will take a few game hours), then play as normal. The intent is to recreate campaign play accurately. Unless you're playing campaigns at 32x, but I very highly doubt it.

[TorpX]

You misunderstand about the TC. Use TC until the convoy appears on radar (it will take a few game hours), then play as normal. The intent is to recreate campaign play accurately. Unless you're playing campaigns at 32x, but I very highly doubt it.

No, I understand.

The idea is to have the convoy sailing over a period of time to see if it holds together, can turn, etc. At high TC, it might well maintain perfect formation no matter what. The game cannot be trusted in this regard. Sea-keeping is much different when you go above 32x. How people play is irrelevant. If I am going to do it, I want valid results. Anyway, 32x is plenty fast, I don't need then to cross the Pacific.

Not that it matters, but I would never exceed 32x on an approach, or during evasion; to many things could happen.

[ColonelSandersLite]

Again, not advocating exceeding 32X on approach. The convoy can turn multiple times inside of radar range at any time compression you care for. There is exactly one point of using time compression in my test. That is to wait for the convoy to come into radar range. The test doesn't even really begin until the target is inside of radar range.

[TorpX]

I made a few tests with convoys, with and without ISP to test station-keeping. The results are posted HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2338994#post2338994).

I'll just say I saw no reason to think ISP or any physics mod will harm convoy integrity.