View Full Version : [REL] Real ASW Mod
And there it is.
No bugs were found so the RC version could be released as the version 4.0.
The things suggested by Anvar are optimisations within the files that make it easier while editing, I will implement these in the following release.
Itīs a big day for me, nearly six years after the release of my first mod version on October 22nd, 2015.
Since then I learned so much about this game, got way better at modding and now Iīm very proud of the product, I hope you guys will enjoy it while I will expand it in the future.
Here you could find it:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/11wf4luri07rjre/Real_ASW_Mod_4.0.7z/file
Have fun:Kaleun_Salute:
Another realism mod, how cool :rock:
Good job :sunny:
Fahnenbohn
10-22-15, 01:45 PM
And did you change / do you intend to change also the hedgehog's DC' settings ?
And is this mod only compatible with CCOM and WAC 5.0 ?
I haven't changed them. I want to do it step by step. First the DCs, then the Hedgehog and then the Airborne-DCs.
What could be changed with the Hedgehogs other that the 3D-Model? Is something in the Simulation wrong or do you only want to have better 3D-Models of the Projectiles and the Thrower?
At this time it is only compatible with Ccom 11. In the future I want to adapt it for WAC 5.0...
Very interesting idea, any realism mod is appreciated, but what about version compatible with GWX?
I'm focusing for the beginning primarily on the mod which I'm using and that is Ccom. At this time more versions for different Supermods are not possible for me to create due to lack of time. When the first version is fully complete I only have to change the .eqp-files to make it compatible to other mods. That saves time and nerves which is very important for me because this is a one man job...
But if you want I could send you the files and explain you what to change so you can make it compatible.
Does anyone have information about the french and polish DCs (amount of explosives, fallspeed, DCTs, numbers on specific in game used ships, which DCT could use which DC) because I canīt create them due lack of information.
What a fantastic idea! I am eager to give it a try, but first I have to find out what CCOM is. I've been away from the game for years but just got back into it recently. Don't feel as if you need to reply to this; I will start reading and found out CCOM.
I've always felt the escorts were lavishly oversupplied with ordnance to tip over the sides and stern. In one particularly horrendous battle I counted about 200 DC explosions. Most of that came from one escort.
I am going to guess that the escorts will not change their behavior as they run low on DC's but will simply use them until they are gone. I've read other players saying they had escorts making runs on them and not dropping anything, so they assumed they were out of DC's. I'm sure it would not be possible to actually mod the behavior of the escorts, as that is likely hardcoded in the game.
In any event. I applaud your efforts and the sharing of your work.
You can download Ccom here: http://www.mediafire.com/rowi58#96uy4naf31aey
Just download all the parts, use 7z to decompress them and you have the necessary files to enable via JSGME.
Does anyone have information about the french and polish DCs (amount of explosives, fallspeed, DCTs, numbers on specific in game used ships, which DCT could use which DC) because I canīt create them due lack of information.
Here you are some infos about DC used by Polish Navy before and in 1939 during German invasion and defending of Polish coast:
http://www.weu1918-1939.pl/bomglebinowa-bh200/
http://www.dobroni.pl/rekonstrukcje,bomba-glebinowa-wz-bh-200,13177
It was French origin weapon of Polish destroyers ORP "Burza" and ORP "Wicher" (24 onboard) and probably ORP "Bģyskawica" and ORP "Grom", but somewhere I've read that was another type DC for these destroyers - BH 135
(40 onboard).
Here you are some infos about DC used by Polish Navy before and in 1939 during German invasion and defending of Polish coast:
http://www.weu1918-1939.pl/bomglebinowa-bh200/
http://www.dobroni.pl/rekonstrukcje,bomba-glebinowa-wz-bh-200,13177
It was French origin weapon of Polish destroyers ORP "Burza" and ORP "Wicher" (24 onboard) and probably ORP "Bģyskawica" and ORP "Grom", but somewhere I've read that was another type DC for these destroyers - BH 135
(40 onboard).
You are great! Thanks!
I can't find the BH 135 on the sites and so I'm for now only implementing the BH 200 and parallel searching in the web for infos about the BH 135.
According to some players experience you have to start a new career after installing this mod.
I don't know why...
The polish addon is coming today or tomorrow...;)
I'll be waiting for GWX version :up:
Do you also have informations about which DCTīs the polish used?
ORP Błyskawica and ORP Grom were previously (just after building) equipped with two DC racks and 20 BH 200 DCs onboard, some authors say about two additional Thornycroft DC throwers (don't know specific model), but probably that is a mistake.
For sure ORP Błyskawica (ORP Grom was lost in 1940 during German invasion of Norway) was equipped with four Thornycraft Mk.IV DCTs after 20 June 1941.
If we are talking about ORP Burza and ORP Wicher (similar to French Bourrasque destroyers) that their antisubmarine weapons looked like this:
1. from building to 1939 they were equipped with two DC racks for 20 BH 200 DCs supply and one Thornycroft DCT for 10 BH 200 supply, but some authors say that DCT was removed in 1934 (ORP Wicher was sunk by German planes in September 1939).
2. from 1940 to 1942 two DC racks for 20 DCs supply and two Thornycroft DCTs for 20 DCs supply.
3. from 1942 to 1945 two DC racks, four Thornycroft Mk.IV DCTs and one Hedgehog.
I hope it helps you with your work mate :up:
That's more than I ever expected!
Thank you very much!
Some further questions to your superb explanations:
Do you also know how many DCs the two Thornycrofts of the Grom had?
20 like the Wicher? I model the early DCTs which you arenīt sure if they were on board with two Thornycroft Mk.I with 10 DCs each.
Do you know where the single launcher on the Wicher was positioned and if it was a K- or Y-Gun.
Are you sure, that the have used the Thornycroft Mk.IV until the end of the war and havenīt upgraded to the Thornycroft Mk.V?
Thanks in Advance mate:salute::yeah:
Padi, small historical research for you:
1. There is only one source of information (one author and one book) about Thornycroft DCTs on board of Grom class just after building and shortly after WWII beginning, so it may not be true. Even then it's true amount of available DCs for DCTs shouldn't exceed 10 (max 20) DCs, similar to Wicher class (20 BH 200 for racks and 10 for throwers). IMHO better to legitimate that there were not any DCTs onboard of Grom class, up to ORP Błyskawica overhaul started on 20.06.1941.
2. The single DCTs on Wicher class were most likely removed from these destroyers in 1934. After that in 1940 only ORP Burza was equipped with two Thornycroft DCTs and in 1942 with four Mk.IV DCTs.
3. I've found nowhere info about Thornycroft Mk.V throwers onboard of ORP Błyskawica and ORP Burza, so only Mk.IV version is verified.
Don't forget important info:
ORP Wicher and ORP Burza were both Wicher class, built in France. ORP Burza survived WWII, but ORP Wicher was sunk by German planes on 3 September 1939.
ORP Grom and ORP Błyskawica were both Grom class, built in UK. ORP Błyskawica survived WWII (she's still on the waves as museum-ship in Gdynia, Poland), but ORP Grom was sunk by German planes on 4 May 1940.
You gave me very interesting job with this, I wanna buy fresh released monography of all Polish destroyers using during WWII for making comprehensive research for you :)
Thanks!
Nice that you have fun doing this😄
I have fun implementing your data😉
The polish ships are now working. Iīm at the moment in the progress of testing and debugging.
I have uploaded the new v.3 Beta 4.
More infos in the first post.
The next step are the french and italian DCs, which are the Focal points of the next version. Informations to them are also welcome;)
After I have finished them I would add the last few ships which I left out until now.
What about Gwx? Is where mod similar?
What about Gwx? Is where mod similar?
The adaption for GWX is in the works.
The adaption for GWX is in the works.
YES The must have mod is getting updated to GWX
Good news, the Mod is again in development!
I have lost interest on SH3 because of some bad things happened in the Marinesims-Forum by one member, but after more than a half year without SH the interest is back again so Iīm beginning to add the missing ship equipment.
But I think that I need help with some classes because I find very less information about french, italian and some other ASW-weapons.
Good news, the Mod is again in development!
I have lost interest on SH3 because of some bad things happened in the Marinesims-Forum by one member, but after more than a half year without SH the interest is back again so Iīm beginning to add the missing ship equipment.
But I think that I need help with some classes because I find very less information about french, italian and some other ASW-weapons.
I am glad to hear that you are keep on your good work on this mod :up:
I might have something for you on my HD: declassified documents on German, Italian and French ASW weapons, and a few British/American DC models (but if need be, with the time I could as well model other neation's ammonition and throwers) :03:
Sounds vers nice and helpful!
Also that you have models available is like a dream come true!
Do you also have information about the ammount of DC's the vessels have carried, because for some ships like the french or the Isaac Sweers I find zero information.
Thanks
Sounds vers nice and helpful!
Also that you have models available is like a dream come true!
Do you also have information about the ammount of DC's the vessels have carried, because for some ships like the french or the Isaac Sweers I find zero information.
Thanks
Hi padi, and sorry for the late reply. I need to check the documents I have available as I didn't look at them in a long time. I think, but I am not sure, they have information about DC shapes, sizes, weights, type and quantity of explosive charges used, types of detonators used and detonation mechanisms, kill radii, etc.
Some good documents that you can start from are found at the following page:
http://www.lexpev.nl/manuals/unitedstates.html
Navweaps.com also has a good deal of data, but you probably know it already. Most of the information collected in it comes from John Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two, of which I have a copy. Should you need to check directly the source, I will be glad to do it for you.
Talking about 3D stuff, I have good quality models of the following depth charges: Type D MkIII, MkVII, MkVII-Heavy (GB), Mk6, Mk7, Mk9, Mk9-Mod2 (US). All the models are by me, so no need to ask for permission to use them, and they come with throwing arbor models as well :up:
Good to hear that your work is in progress, padi :up:
A6Intruder
07-17-17, 12:05 PM
Good to hear that your work is in progress, padi :up:
Copy that!
Best regards:Kaleun_Salute:
the_frog
07-17-17, 02:48 PM
Hello padi,
in case you are looking for 3D models of the two basic types of British throwers, check the lastes version of the guns_UK library.
As for the Isaac Sweers, it was fitted out in the UK and had the standard outfit of fleet destroyers of 1941/42 (4 throwers, 2 rails).
The original French ships had an internal rail systems for heavy depth charges and Thornycroft-type throwers. All that is included in the models done by Texelbo and also in my Le Fantasque model.
The French ships serving with the Royal Navy had their equipment replaced by British material. So, try making educated guesses by comparing with similar British units.
The Italian used their very own type of throwers and also specific rails. A simple model of the Italian throwers was done by JapLance for his SH4 models. Just check the libraries he provided.
Cheers
Wow that are really nice and useful informations!
I'm implementing that information into the files and I hope that I can upload a extended file in the next few days.
But I have two questions regarding your answers:
1. to the Frog: Which guns_UK do you mean? Is the file supplied with your last ship?
2. to gap: I would really like to implement the Models into the files. There is only one Question: Did the Mk7 Mod2 look different from the Mk7?
Sadly the Mk9 Mod2 is useless for the purpose of this mod, because the only advantage (that I have read about) was the deeper detonation depth...
But if the Mod2 had any implementable improvements I'm going to implement them.
Also thanks to all the replys which show me that the work isn't useless and nobody cares about it!
Like we say in Germany "das geht runter wie Öl"!
2. to gap: I would really like to implement the Models into the files. There is only one Question: Did the Mk7 Mod2 look different from the Mk7?
I don't have any information on the existence of a Mk7 Mod2, but there were a Mk9 Mod1 and a Mod2 if that's what you meant. IIRC, the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod1 were almost identical, the only difference consisting in construction details. The Mk9 Mod2, on turn, differed in many ways from the two previous mods:
http://i.imgur.com/y9SVLOZ.png
Depth charge Mk9 on the left, MK9 Mod2 on the right
Sadly the Mk9 Mod2 is useless for the purpose of this mod, because the only advantage (that I have read about) was the deeper detonation depth...
But if the Mod2 had any implementable improvements I'm going to implement them.
I am going by memory, but I think the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod2 had slightly different explosive charges/blast radii, and I am pretty sure their sinking rates differed quite a lot. Conversely, the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod1 shared the same characteristics.
Detonation depths depended on detonators/fuzes fitted, and they can't be associated with any particular depth charge mark/mod, as they were interchangeable and new detonators were often retrofitted to older depth charge models. Information available on the web is often misleading on this point, but the US manuals that I pointed you to are quite clear on this respect.
Also thanks to all the replys which show me that the work isn't useless and nobody cares about it!
Sure it isn't, quite the opposite. Depth charge's evolution, together with the improvement of detection technologies, was one of the key factors of WWII ASW. At the beginning of the war, DCs were more a deterrent than an actual threat, but by mid-late war, they had turned into deadly weapons. Unfortunately devs oversimplified these factors. Any mod addressing them, is of high interest :up:
Kendras
07-19-17, 08:03 AM
Depth charge's evolution, together with the improvement of detection technologies, was one of the key factors of WWII ASW. At the beginning of the war, DCs were more a deterrent than an actual threat, but by mid-late war, they had turned into deadly weapons. Unfortunately devs oversimplified these factors. Any mod addressing them, is of high interest
+1 :yep:
No, I mean the second modification of the Mk7, which I refer as Mod2.
Here is the corresponding text from Navweaps:
A redesigned Mark 4. The redesign was to simplify the construction and took advantage of new production techniques developed since the end of World War I. This was the standard depth charge for USN ships early in World War II. Mod 1 (issued in August 1942) increased the maximum depth setting to 600 feet (183 m). A later version reduced the warhead to 400 lbs. (181.4 kg) TNT in order to add a lead weight which increased the sink rate to 13 fps (4 mps).
The part from "A later version..." I think is refering to the Mod2.
I am going by memory, but I think the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod2 had slightly different explosive charges/blast radii, and I am pretty sure their sinking rates differed quite a lot. Conversely, the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod1 shared the same characteristics.
I have never heard from that, but I will search about that.
I also haven't knew the information about the fuzes before...
No, I mean the second modification of the Mk7, which I refer as Mod2.
Here is the corresponding text from Navweaps:
[...]
The part from "A later version..." I think is refering to the Mod2.
Oh, you are talking about the British MkVII. The usage of the same mark numbers for different depth charges by the Americans and by the English, is a bit misleading. British DC's were designated with roman numbers though, whereas for US DC's arabic numbers were used instead. :03:
Anyway, I think the official designation for the DC mod you are talking about was MKVII-Heavy, and yes, its lead weight protruding from the cylindrical casing, it brong some external differences compared to the 'regular' MkVII:
http://i.imgur.com/VWAvIGD.png
British depth charge MkVII (left) and MkVII-Heavy (right)
I have never heard from that, but I will search about that.
I also haven't knew the information about the fuzes before...
I am a bit busy now, but I will point you to the right information ASAP. Somewhere on my HD, I should have an Excel chart created by me, resuming all the characteristics of the main US/British depth charges and all the possible combinations of DC's, fuzes and detonators :salute:
Oh, you are talking about the British MkVII. The usage of the same mark numbers for different depth charges by the Americans and by the English, is a bit misleading. British DC's were designeted with roman numbers though, whereas in the States arabic numbers were used instead. :03:
Anyway, I think the official designation for the DC mod you are talking about was MKVII-Heavy, and yes, its lead weight partly protruding from the cylindrical casing, it brong some external differences compared to the 'regular' MkVII:
http://i.imgur.com/VWAvIGD.png
British depth charge MkVII (right) and MkVII-Heavy (left)
I am a bit busy now, but I will point you to the right information ASAP. Somewhere on my HD, I should have an Excel chart created by me, resuming all the characteristics of the main US/British depth charges and all the possible combinations of DC's, fuzes and detonators :salute:
No, Iīm talking about the american Mark 7 DC and not the british Mark VII!
As written here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php the Mark 7 had at least two modification intervals and because of that I named the second modification interval Mod 2, even if this name is not written, but what should you name it else?
No, Iīm talking about the american Mark 7 DC and not the british Mark VII!
As written here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php the Mark 7 had at least two modification intervals and because of that I named the second modification interval Mod 2, even if this name is not written, but what should you name it else?
I am sorry: I have checked all the documents I know of, but I couldn't find any useful information on the topic. Data reported by John Campbell in his book that I mentioned in one of my previous posts, is more or less the same as in Navweaps:
"A redesigned Mk 4 and standard in the earlier part of the war. Total weight was 768lb (348kg), charge 600lb (272kg), sinking speed 9f/s (2.7m/s) and depth 30-300ft (9-91m) increased in Mod 1 (issued in August 1942) to 600ft (183m). Versions with lead weight had a sinking speed of about 13f/s (4m/s)"
That's all. I have also checked this ordnance pamphlet by the Bureau of Ordnance (https://maritime.org/doc/depthcharge6/), but nowhere in it these 'lead weight versions' are mentioned. The document is dated December 1943. Either the heavy Mk7 entered service after that date, or it was seldomly used.
Let me know if you find any extra information. In the meanwhile we can only assume that, unlike the British Mk VII-Heavy, the US depth charge with the same number had the lead weight fitted internally, and that the heavy version of it had the same external appearance as its standard-weight mods. The lead weight being internal, seems to be confirmed by the fact that the explosive charge had to be reduced in order to make space for the extra weight, as reported by navweaps. :salute:
For reference, this is how my version of the US Mk DC looks (more specifically a British-made version of it, as you can see from the markings):
http://i.imgur.com/yBb1tNA.png
For reference, this is how my version of the US Mk DC looks (more specifically a British-made version of it, as you can see from the markings):
http://i.imgur.com/yBb1tNA.png
That models are so nice!
I can't wait to have that models implemented!
After the conversation I think that I will also implement the Mk 9 Mod 1 but for first with estimated ratings, but they are changed later.
The Mk 7 Mod 2 will also stay in the mod, because I think that it is implemented completely...
Anvar1061
07-19-17, 11:06 AM
http://s019.radikal.ru/i634/1707/fb/9812b19ad829.jpg
What happened to the date? 19.19.2017
What happened to the date? 19.19.2017
What do you mean?
What happened to the date? 19.19.2017
What do you mean?
Another prophecy on when the next end of the world is to be expected? :eek:
Now let's find which calendar has 19.19.2017 as a valid date :hmmm:
Anvar1061
07-19-17, 12:41 PM
http://s019.radikal.ru/i634/1707/fb/9812b19ad829.jpg
the_frog
07-19-17, 03:44 PM
1. to the Frog: Which guns_UK do you mean? Is the file supplied with your last ship?
The one with the Southampton/Fiji is the latest; using any other would cause potential problems. The files have also the roll-off chutes, either with one or two DCs. Those chutes and the DC (British-made US type) were made GWX Alex.
@gap:
What is the poly count of those DCs?
Do the DCs loose their arbors upon being fired?
What is the poly count of those DCs?
On average, a little more than 2,400 polygons for the depth charges, and almost 1,000 for the arbors. Do you think they are too much? there is still some space for downsampling them...
Do the DCs loose their arbors upon being fired?
That's what I had planned. DC barrels and arbors are separate models. I think it is impossible making arbors to detach themselves in midair, and to fall down in the water following a different trajectory that their barrels. Nonetheless, we can place them on a child node of the barrel node, and attach to them a VisibleUnderwater controller set to false. What do you think?
the_frog
07-19-17, 04:45 PM
On average, a little more than 2,400 polygons for the depth charges, and almost 1,000 for the arbors. Do you think they are too much? there is still some space for downsampling them...
The US-type DCs in the guns_UK have about 1000, without arbors. That later Brtish throwers had the arbors built-in.
That's what I had planned. DC barrels and arbors are separate models. I think it is impossible making arbors to detach themselves in midair, and to fall down in the water following a different trajectory that their barrels. Nonetheless, we can place them on a child node of the barrel node, and attach to them a VisibleUnderwater controller set to false. What do you think?
That could be a good compromise. The later British (and likely also the US) throwers had built-in arbors. That means, no arbor was ejected.
The US-type DCs in the guns_UK have about 1000, without arbors. That later Brtish throwers had the arbors built-in.
I think with my models, on a modern machine, we are to the limit. As I said, I could still reduce the poly count of my model, for instance I could change16-faced cylindrical and circular geometries with 12-faced ones, but even so, I don't think I can ensure the same level of detail staying below 3,000 faces (barrels + arbors)
That could be a good compromise. The later British (and likely also the US) throwers had built-in arbors. That means, no arbor was ejected.
That's not a problem: we can have multiple copies of the same DC, with and without arbors. Do you think there is any other way to mimic arbors detaching from the barrels? DC thrower models with multiple K-gun controllers attached to them maybe (one for the DC and one for the arbor)? :hmm2:
mikey117us
07-19-17, 07:11 PM
Realism and ASW and SHIII have been neglected the Vanilla Depth Charges a Disaster. Thanks to The_Frog and His Series of Ships we have some help in that arena with his Throwers and Depth Charges. The RN/RCN Mark IV DCT ( depth charge throwers ) Had Expendable Arbor Stands. RN/RCN Mark V DCT were improved ( known as DC_thrower_2 in UK_Guns.dat ) based on the Lend Lease USN K-Guns Design the Arbor and Stand Extend at Launch and Automatically Retract to the Load/Fire Position Both Operated like a potato gun. the lifting charge being War Alcohol ( Not for Sailors Use ) .
Example in game of The_Frogs ( Modified by me ) Mark IV DCT ( Known as DC_thrower_1 in UK_Guns.dat ) Throwing its stand and a Mark VII Depth Charge, as modified with the arbor/stand from the model and a cylinder attached, textured in dark colors to identify as Mark VII for DCT ( Mark VII Heavy Forbidden from use on DCT Mark IV ): ( a Mod within a Mod of My to be released in 2017, New Platinum Edition Flower Class Corvette "The Cruel Sea" Mod.
http://i.imgur.com/JuRay1I.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GKiIxMM.jpg
Here is a RN/RCN Mark II ( Tall ) DC Track/Rail Late Variant For Flower Class Corvettes , His Majesty's Trawlers, etc. ( 3 Versions made 1:without internal store, no smoke emission eqp. External Loads on Deck Rails. 2: with smoke emission eqp. 3: as pictured double rowed with internal stores, and smoke eqp.
All versions have DC Mark VIIs with Expendable Arbor Stand on RN/RCN Chocks.
http://i.imgur.com/sYyuMFg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/v8ebZHG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JGc7ovr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N327Jjy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZYiLgnJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UiB2dbi.jpg
In closing I Like this thread as ASW often ruins a U-Boats Day! I'm Working on an all new Hedgehog and Rounds for this Mod. Also Planned a Foxer Decoy Allied Counter Measures to Type IV and V Acoustic Homing Torpedoes.
Realism and ASW and SHIII have been neglected the Vanilla Depth Charges a Disaster. Thanks to The_Frog and His Series of Ships we have some help in that arena with his Throwers and Depth Charges. The RN/RCN Mark IV DCT ( depth charge throwers ) Had Expendable Arbor Stands. RN/RCN Mark V DCT were improved ( known as DC_thrower_2 in UK_Guns.dat ) based on the Lend Lease USN K-Guns Design the Arbor and Stand Extend at Launch and Automatically Retract to the Load/Fire Position Both Operated like a potato gun. the lifting charge being War Alcohol ( Not for Sailors Use ) .
Thank you for the precious information. Honestly I didn't know anything about these retracting launching arbors until The_Frog told me about them yesterday :up:
Example in game [...]
...and thank you for the amazing screenies and detailed captions too. Those DC throwes and racks by The_Frog are... wow! :yeah:
I'm Working on an all new Hedgehog and Rounds for this Mod.
A better hedgehog thrower was in my todo, though with a low priority. I am glad somenoe else is planning to model it. As for the projectile, if memory serves me well I should have one ready in my personal archive. I hope I can find it and post here a render for your evaluation.
Also Planned a Foxer Decoy Allied Counter Measures to Type IV and V Acoustic Homing Torpedoes.
Is that going to be only cosmetic, or it will actually distract our torpedoes from their targets?
In closing I Like this thread as ASW often ruins a U-Boats Day! I'm Working on an all new Hedgehog and Rounds for this Mod.
A better hedgehog thrower was in my todo, though with a low priority. I am glad somenoe else is planning to model it. As for the projectile, if memory serves me well I should have one ready in my personal archive. I hope I can find it and post here a render for your evaluation.
Here it is ė:
http://i.imgur.com/4AsrMck.png
Poly count: 1,140 polygons (projectile + fuze + nose cap).
Mikey and padi, let me know if you would like it for your mods. :salute:
mikey and padi, let me know if you would like it for your mods. :salute:
Yes for sure as well as the DCs, but I'm not working on the hedgehog at the moment, this is scheduled after the DCs.
But if mikey is working on the hedgehog I think that I don't work on them so that our mods could become compatible and both works could be used simulaneusly.
Is the fuze cap disappearing under water?
Yes for sure as well as the DCs, but I'm not working on the hedgehog at the moment, this is scheduled after the DCs.
:up:
But if mikey is working on the hedgehog I think that I don't work on them so that our mods could become compatible and both works could be used simulaneusly.
I think mikey is more focused on graphic/3d stuff, and you on file tweaking. Imo tou should work in a team :D
Is the fuze cap disappearing under water?
I believe caps were removed just before the weapon was fired, while hedgehogs were still loaded on their thrower. I don't remember how the hedgehog is set in game, but I think the thrower model has its own inbuilt projectiles, which are on a separate model than the ammo itactually fires. If that was true, a good compromise would be having capped projectiles attached to the thrower model, and uncapped ones as its ammo. I hope I made myself clear :)
I think mikey is more focused on graphic/3d stuff, and you on file tweaking. Imo tou should work in a teamI hope I made myself clear :)
Yes you made yourself clear😄
Mikey are you interested in working as a team?
Yes you made yourself clear😄
:up:
Hey guys
I want to ask if this modified flower corvette had been released
cheers!!@
mikey117us
07-20-17, 10:10 AM
Modified Flower Class is Pre-Release screens. Release planned this year will start a seperate WIP Thread soon.
Modified Flower Class is Pre-Release screens. Release planned this year will start a seperate WIP Thread soon.
:yeah:
Good news, but I think you missed something: :O:
I think mikey is more focused on graphic/3d stuff, and you on file tweaking. Imo tou should work in a team :D
Mikey are you interested in working as a team?
@gap: Another question:
Could you send me the files for the DCs or a link to them so I could try to implement them into the files?
Credits are self-evident.
Thanks
Kendras
07-20-17, 11:16 AM
Mikey are you interested in working as a team?
Don't forget :D :
http://www.thegreywolves.com/assets/images/aboutimages/GWXpromotional11.jpg
Don't forget :D :
http://www.thegreywolves.com/assets/images/aboutimages/GWXpromotional11.jpg
:up:
@gap: Another question:
Could you send me the files for the DCs or a link to them so I could try to implement them into the files?
Credits are self-evident.
Thanks
Sure. No problem for credits: I plan to steal your mod and port it to SH5 lol :D
Before I send them, do you use Wings3D? Are you good at some basic 3D editing tasks as scaling, moving, etc?
Before I send them, do you use Wings3D? Are you good at some basic 3D editing tasks as scaling, moving, etc?
No, I have used Blender in the past, but Iīm out of training...
No, I have used Blender in the past, but Iīm out of training...
Okay, I need to export the models in obj format then (at the moment they all are stored in a wings file), and I need to post-process them before you can use them in game. Maybe it would be better if me your files, so that I can set up my 3d models based on those files before importing them. What do you think? :)
Okay, I need to export the models in obj format then (at the moment they all are stored in a wings file), and I need to post-process them before you can use them in game. Maybe it would be better if me your files, so that I can set up my 3d models based on those files before importing them. What do you think? :)
No problem, sounds very good.
The file is coming tomorrow...
No problem, sounds very good.
The file is coming tomorrow...
:salute:
I think it would be better if all the throwers and depth charges were just in one big dat file. This way we could re-use shared models without having to import them every time. Lesser disc and RAM memory usage. What do you think? :)
:salute:
I think it would be better if all the throwers and depth charges were just in one big dat file. This way we could re-use shared models without having to import them every time. Lesser disc and RAM memory usage. What do you think? :)
You mean references of the nodes to one model per DC at the beginning of the file?
That is already implemented...
You mean references of the nodes to one model per DC at the beginning of the file?
That is already implemented...
Yes. I also mean that throwes and DCs that throwers are equipped with should be in the same dat file, if possible. Reason is that the thrower models have dummy DC's on them, so we could use the imported DC models for two purposes: barrels on the throwers/racks, and barrels which are actually thrown against the enemy: two pigeons with a stone!
Yes. I also mean that throwes and DCs that throwers are equipped with should be in the same dat file, if possible. Reason is that the thrower models have dummy DC's on them, so we could use the imported DC models for two purposes: barrels on the throwers/racks, and barrels which are actually thrown against the enemy: two pigeons with a stone!
That is not currently implemented.
Did I understand it right that the depthcharges.dat/sim/zon and the DC_R_KG.dat/sim/zon should be merged?
I don't know how to did the second part of your post, I'm sorry!
That is not currently implemented.
Did I understand it right that the depthcharges.dat/sim/zon and the DC_R_KG.dat/sim/zon should be merged?
Yes, you are correct :up:
I don't know how to did the second part of your post, I'm sorry!
That's easy: in S3d, you can select any chunk and copy it with all its child chunks by pressing Shift Ctrl C; you can then paste the copied chunks in a second file with the usula Ctrl V shortcut :yep:
I did not manage to finish the files today ...
I did not manage to finish the files today ...
No problem mate, I have been busy with Kendra's mod anyway. I am waiting for your files tomorrow :salute:
mikey117us
07-21-17, 08:02 PM
@Gap if you get a chance PM the Hedghog Rounds both Fuse Capped and Launch Ready. I will inplement them into an improved Launcher. I'll include with the flower class corvette full credits. Also will build the "Split" design Hedgehog, 12 port, 12 starboard. Fir ships with narrow beams, and deck space at a minimum.
@Gap if you get a chance PM the Hedghog Rounds both Fuse Capped and Launch Ready. I will inplement them into an improved Launcher. I'll include with the flower class corvette full credits. Also will build the "Split" design Hedgehog, 12 port, 12 starboard. Fir ships with narrow beams, and deck space at a minimum.
Tomorrow I will send them your way :up:
No problem mate, I have been busy with Kendra's mod anyway. I am waiting for your files tomorrow :salute:
It is uploaded now.
You find it under this Link (https://www.mediafire.com/folder/4uqjlj8qekcwc/Real%20ASW%20for%20CcoM%20by%20Padi).
The files are the Real_ASW_Mod.dat, Real_ASW_Mod.sim and Real_ASW_Mod.zon.
The new informations that I have received here in the past few days are not implemented, Iīm working on them.
It is uploaded now.
You find it under this Link (https://www.mediafire.com/folder/4uqjlj8qekcwc/Real%20ASW%20for%20CcoM%20by%20Padi).
The files are the Real_ASW_Mod.dat, Real_ASW_Mod.sim and Real_ASW_Mod.zon.
The new informations that I have received here in the past few days are not implemented, Iīm working on them.
I have got the files and I am looking into them :up:
I have got the files and I am looking into them :up:
I have seen that I have accidentially uploaded my testfiles.
They have the wrong guns.tga files but the rest is as the release files...
I have seen that I have accidentially uploaded my testfiles.
They have the wrong guns.tga files but the rest is as the release files...
No problem. Yesterday I have been busy with Kendras' lighthouse project. I will look into your files this afternoon.
Sorry for the incovenience :salute:
It is uploaded now.
You find it under this Link (https://www.mediafire.com/folder/4uqjlj8qekcwc/Real%20ASW%20for%20CcoM%20by%20Padi).
The files are the Real_ASW_Mod.dat, Real_ASW_Mod.sim and Real_ASW_Mod.zon.
The new informations that I have received here in the past few days are not implemented, Iīm working on them.
I have got the files and I am looking into them :up:
@Gap if you get a chance PM the Hedghog Rounds both Fuse Capped and Launch Ready. I will inplement them into an improved Launcher. I'll include with the flower class corvette full credits. Also will build the "Split" design Hedgehog, 12 port, 12 starboard. Fir ships with narrow beams, and deck space at a minimum.
Tomorrow I will send them your way :up:
I am sorry guys, I am not leaving you behind but, as you have probably noticed, recently all my free time has been absorbed by Kendras' lighthouse mod and by a problem with the specular texture of model we are experimenting with. I we find a solution, hopefully also your mods will benefir from that.
Thank you for your paticence and stay tuned for updated from me anytime soon :salute:
mikey117us
07-25-17, 03:49 PM
@gap no problem, took a week off from SH III/Wings3D from burnout. ( normally I start something new and avoid what i'm tired of ) not this time! 1942-45 RN Flower Class Corvettes are real close to being done! RCN versions next. Then backdated versions. Type A bridge and short Fo'c's'le, minimal AA, Minesweeping gear.Type B bridge long Fo'c's'le extended bridge wings, upgraded AA, removed MS gear, added ASW Capability ( more throwers ) backdated versions all with mast forward of bridge with a different rigging and mast stay combination. So Beta testing is my only future. ( takes longer than a new model )
Kendras
07-25-17, 04:11 PM
@gap no problem, took a week off from SH III/Wings3D from burnout. ( normally I start something new and avoid what i'm tired of ) not this time! 1942-45 RN Flower Class Corvettes are real close to being done! RCN versions next. Then backdated versions. Type A bridge and short Fo'c's'le, minimal AA, Minesweeping gear.Type B bridge long Fo'c's'le extended bridge wings, upgraded AA, removed MS gear, added ASW Capability ( more throwers ) backdated versions all with mast forward of bridge with a different rigging and mast stay combination. So Beta testing is my only future. ( takes longer than a new model )
Open a new WIP thread ! :)
@gap no problem, took a week off from SH III/Wings3D from burnout. ( normally I start something new and avoid what i'm tired of ) not this time! 1942-45 RN Flower Class Corvettes are real close to being done! RCN versions next. Then backdated versions. Type A bridge and short Fo'c's'le, minimal AA, Minesweeping gear.Type B bridge long Fo'c's'le extended bridge wings, upgraded AA, removed MS gear, added ASW Capability ( more throwers ) backdated versions all with mast forward of bridge with a different rigging and mast stay combination. So Beta testing is my only future. ( takes longer than a new model )
If you want I could create a fitting set of DC-files for your mod so that it could be released with the extended DC-system.
If you are interested just PM me the necessary information and the shipfiles and the data is in the works.
Gap please empty your PM-Storage.
Gap please empty your PM-Storage.
Done :up:
Any progress? for WAC 5.0
Any progress? for WAC 5.0
@ padi
Niume anticipated me: during the last few days I have been wondering if you had made any progress with your mod. Since the last time we have discussed about it, I have added a few new models to my collection of 3D ASW ordnance. Models I have (more or less) ready so far are:
US 300 lb depth charge Mark 6 / Mark 6 Mod 1 + throwing arbor
US 600 lb depth charge Mark 7 / Mark 7 Mod 1
US 200 lb depth charges Mark 9 / Mark 9 Mod 1 and Mark 9 Mod 2 + throwing arbors
GB 300 lb depth charge Type D Mark III (this one was a WWI depth charge but, according to navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Type_D_Mark_III) still in service as late as 1940)
GB 290 lb depth charges Mark VII and Mark VII heavy
GB hedgehog / US mousetrap projectile (according to John Campbell's "Naval Weapons of WWII" , a version of the latter was modified for being fired or dropped (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/kingfisheraddendadb_1.htm) from patrol aircraft)
GB squid laucher and projectile (those models are already part of a mod by LGN1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2353351#post2353351))
GB 60 lb HE and 25 lb AP RP-3 rockets + rail
US 3.5-Inch and 5-inch FFAR rockets + rail (I hope at some moment my rocket models will be merged with Kendras' WIP rockets mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2452985#post2452985))
GB 100 lb A/S bombs Mk. III, IV and VI
GB 250 lb A/S bombs Mk. III and IV
GB 500 lb A/S bomb Mk. IV
US 325 lb Mk. 17 / 350 lb Mk. 44 depth bomb
US 350 lb Mk. 41 / Mk. 47 depth bombs
US 325 lb Mk. 53 / 350 lb Mk. 54 depth bomb
US 650 lb Mk. 29 and Mk. 37 depth bombs
US 650 lb Mk. 38 / 700 lb Mk. 49 depth bomb
Moreover, I recommend you to read carefully the following short essay I have found on the lethality/damage radii of underwater ordnance:
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Subsurface/Depth_Charge_Lethality.htm
other useful rediangs on the same topic:
Andrzej Grzadziela - Model of Impact Underwater Detonation, Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 19, No. 2 2012 (http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BUJ5-0047-0022/c/httpwww_bg_utp_edu_plartkones212brakigrzadziela.pd f)
David Sulfredge, Robert Morris, Robert Sanders - Calculating the Effect of Surface or Underwater Explosions - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, January 2005 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.129.8805&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
E. Kowsarinia, Y Alizadeh, H. S. Salavati Pour - Experimental Evaluation of Blast Wave Parameters in Underwater Explosions of Hexogen Charges - 2011 (http://www.ije.ir/fulltext/%7Bbc449e24d1cc8bb9397d9bcdd2c34da3%7D/1182/25/)
Frederick A. Costanzo - Underwater Explosion Phenomena and Shock Physics - Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, UERD, February 2010 (http://www.am.chalmers.se/~thab/IMAC/2010/PDFs/Papers/s38p003.pdf)
Robert H. Cole - Underwater Explosions - Princeton University Press (1948) (https://archive.org/stream/underwaterexplos00cole#page/n0/mode/2up)
Schneider, Nathan A. - Prediction of surface ship response to severe underwater explosions - Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School, June, 2003 (https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/909/03Jun_Schneider.pdf?sequence=1)
Warren D. Reid - The Response of Surface Ships to Underwater Explosions - DSTO (1996) (http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA326738)
Of course we cannot simulate the complexity of real shokwave damage but at level required for gaming purposes we can get relatively close to it, and the articles above contain most of what we need to know on the real thing :03:
Any progress? for WAC 5.0
No, until now because of the trouble with rowi58 who is behaving like a child I was very annoyed and lost interest in SH3 at times.
Meanwhile, the disappointment over his behavior is gone and I focus again on SH3.
I will DL WAC this week and adapt the modfiles to it if the mod looks like an improvement over ccom, what I think should be the case...
@gap
I'm online today for the first time in many months, so I have to look at your mod first before I could say anything about it and the useness of the models.
But they sound really interesting and useful!
Are they made with the same file structure like the Stock-DCs?
@gap
I'm online today for the first time in many months, so I have to look at your mod first before I could say anything about it and the useness of the models.
But they sound really interesting and useful!
Are they made with the same file structure like the Stock-DCs?
No mod so far: just 3D meshes. Their structure can be customized depending on the need. In general, I like keeping my models for SHIII as "modular" as possible so that, if need be, I can re-use the same parts many times, without need of re-importing the every time :)
No mod so far: just 3D meshes. Their structure can be customized depending on the need. In general, I like keeping my models for SHIII as "modular" as possible so that, if need be, I can re-use the same parts many times, without need of re-importing the every time :)
Let me give you an example of what I mean for "modular" models. Let's say that we are importing different throwers and DC marks in game. As long as we store them in the same file, there is no need that we import each DC model two times (one for the charge loaded on the thrower and one for the actual ammo depth charge): the same mesh can be linked both to the thrower model and to the DC ammo node. This approach will be very useful since your mod features different thrower and DC marks: using it we can create many combinations by still keeping file size acceptable. Moreover, by keeping the harbor mesh saparate from the DC mesh, we can do harbors to disappear once the DC enters in the water using the visible underwater render controller. I hope I am making myself clear... :D
Let me give you an example of what I mean for "modular" models. Let's say that we are importing different throwers and DC marks in game. As long as we store them in the same file, there is no need that we import each DC model two times (one for the charge loaded on the thrower and one for the actual ammo depth charge): the same mesh can be linked both to the thrower model and to the DC ammo node. This approach will be very useful since your mod features different thrower and DC marks: using it we can create many combinations by still keeping file size acceptable. Moreover, by keeping the harbor mesh saparate from the DC mesh, we can do harbors to disappear once the DC enters in the water using the visible underwater render controller. I hope I am making myself clear... :D
Yes you are very clear.
I think that I was unclear.
I answer tomorrow because the names for the different labels in the file structure I need to explain my error aren't coming to my mind...
Yes you are very clear.
I think that I was unclear.
I answer tomorrow because the names for the different labels in the file structure I need to explain my error aren't coming to my mind...
Okay, I am looking forward to your answers :up:
Let me give you an example of what I mean for "modular" models. Let's say that we are importing different throwers and DC marks in game. As long as we store them in the same file, there is no need that we import each DC model two times (one for the charge loaded on the thrower and one for the actual ammo depth charge): the same mesh can be linked both to the thrower model and to the DC ammo node. This approach will be very useful since your mod features different thrower and DC marks: using it we can create many combinations by still keeping file size acceptable. Moreover, by keeping the harbor mesh saparate from the DC mesh, we can do harbors to disappear once the DC enters in the water using the visible underwater render controller. I hope I am making myself clear... :D
I have meant the following:
In Stock a DC Node in the DC_R_KG.dat is structured in the following order:
DCRack
-> DCRack_base_L
-> DCRack_barrel01
-> SHD_DCRack_barrel01
-> DCRack_BarrelFall01
-> SHD_DCRack_BarrelFall01
-> DCRack_BarrelFall
-> SHD_DCRack_BarrelFall
-> crik
-> stopper
-> parghie
-> SHD_DCRack_base_L
-> DC_man
-> DC_man_cask
My question was if you have structured your models that the existing 3D-models are replaced through these and work so or whether the file structure is built up differently.
As long as we store them in the same file, there is no need that we import each DC model two times (one for the charge loaded on the thrower and one for the actual ammo depth charge):For me that sentence sounds like that isnīt the case, which would be an improvement in keeping the filesize small if models could be used more than once:03:
Quite apart from that Iīm always thankful for any help and suggestion in improving the mod an my knowledge of the game so Iīm happy that a person with your know how want to help me:yeah:
In Stock a DC Node in the DC_R_KG.dat is structured in the following order...
Okay, my example was about Y- and K-guns. DC racks are a bit more complicated because they have keyframe animations that possibly we will need to fine tune a bit for our updated models. Before S3d, hex-editing them and checking every little change in game would have been a little nightmare, but now things are much easier. Here are my notes on the stock DC rack structure:
DCRack_base_L This node contains the rack itself (static)
DCRack_barrel01 This node contains the last four DC barrels (with keyframe animations)
SHD_DCRack_barrel01
DCRack_BarrelFall01 This node contains the first DC barrel, ready for being dropped (with keyframe animations)
SHD_DCRack_BarrelFall01
DCRack_BarrelFall Same as <DCRack_BarrelFall01>, but a different stage of DC's dropping animation (with keyframe animations, when we se it, we don't see <DCRack_BarrelFall01>)
SHD_DCRack_BarrelFall
crik This node contains the release lever (with keyframe animations)
stopper This node contains the DC stopper (with keyframe animations)
parghie This node contains the shaft connecting the release lever with the DC stopper (with keyframe animations)
SHD_DCRack_base_L
DC_man This node contains the sailor manning the DC rack (with mesh animations)
DC_man_cask This node contains sailor's helmet (with keyframe animations)
nodes whose name starts with "SHD", can be ignored at this stage, as they are used for dynamic shadows that are disabled/buggy in SHIII.
My question was if you have structured your models that the existing 3D-models are replaced through these and work so or whether the file structure is built up differently.
No, I didn't because so far I have only modelled DC barrels and other ASW ordnance, but I have not looked into racks/throwers (yet). I will look into my books for informations on them. I hope I can get some good drawing of them, that I can use for creating realistic models of them. Please, let me know if you have any valuable information on them (types used, sizes, specs and possibly drawings)
For me that sentence sounds like that isnīt the case, which would be an improvement in keeping the filesize small if models could be used more than once:03:
Definitely that's something we can and we need to achieve :up:
Quite apart from that Iīm always thankful for any help and suggestion in improving the mod an my knowledge of the game so Iīm happy that a person with your know how want to help me:yeah:
My pleasure padi. As I have said yesterday, I have the most important US and British depth charges basically ready for being imported in game. Let's focus on the throwing/dropping mechanisms now. Once I have modelled one or two of them, we can start importing them into your mod together with the DC barrels, and see how they look/work :up:
EDIT: I have just checked for information the website of the Historic Naval Ships Association and I have found the following documents on US DC tracks and projectors:
http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/depthprojector/index.htm (alternative link: https://maritime.org/doc/destroyer/depthprojector/index.htm)
http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/depthprojector1/index.htm (alternative link: https://maritime.org/doc/destroyer/depthprojector1/index.htm)
http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/depthtrack/index.htm (alternative link: https://maritime.org/doc/destroyer/depthtrack/index.htm)
The pamphlet on the DC racks is dated September 1952 though. Possibly some racks developped after the end of WWII are listed there, and some early racks considered obsolete but still in use during the war have been omitted :hmmm:
EDIT 2: found on navweaps.com some additional information on DC racks/projectors used by the main nations involved in WWII:
UK (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Depth_Charge_Racks)
USA (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php#Depth_Charge_Racks)
USSR (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMRussian_ASW.php#Depth_Charge_Racks)
France (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMFR_ASW.php#Depth_Charge_Racks)
Germany (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMGER_ASW.php#Racks)
Italy (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMIT_ASW.php#Depth_Charge_Racks)
Japan (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.php#Depth_Charge_Racks)
Okay, my example was about Y- and K-guns. DC racks are a bit more complicated because they have keyframe animations that possibly we will need to fine tune a bit for our updated models. Before S3d, hex-editing them and checking every little change in game would have been a little nightmare, but now things are much easier. Here are my notes on the stock DC rack structure:
DCRack_base_L This node contains the rack itself (static)
DCRack_barrel01 This node contains the last four DC barrels (with keyframe animations)
SHD_DCRack_barrel01
DCRack_BarrelFall01 This node contains the first DC barrel, ready for being dropped (with keyframe animations)
SHD_DCRack_BarrelFall01
DCRack_BarrelFall Same as <DCRack_BarrelFall01>, but a different stage of DC's dropping animation (with keyframe animations, when we se it, we don't see <DCRack_BarrelFall01>)
SHD_DCRack_BarrelFall
crik This node contains the release lever (with keyframe animations)
stopper This node contains the DC stopper (with keyframe animations)
parghie This node contains the shaft connecting the release lever with the DC stopper (with keyframe animations)
SHD_DCRack_base_L
DC_man This node contains the sailor manning the DC rack (with mesh animations)
DC_man_cask This node contains sailor's helmet (with keyframe animations)
nodes whose name starts with "SHD", can be ignored at this stage, as they are used for dynamic shadows that are disabled/buggy in SHIII.
No, I didn't because so far I have only modelled DC barrels and other ASW ordnance, but I have not looked into racks/throwers (yet). I will look into my books for informations on them. I hope I can get some good drawing of them, that I can use for creating realistic models of them. Please, let me know if you have any valuable information on them (types used, sizes, specs and possibly drawings)
Definitely that's something we can and we need to achieve :up:
My pleasure padi. As I have said yesterday, I have the most important US and British depth charges basically ready for being imported in game. Let's focus on the throwing/dropping mechanisms now. Once I have modelled one or two of them, we can start importing them into your mod together with the DC barrels, and see how they look/work :up:
Sounds fantastic!
I have only found this link for drawings about Racks in the past, but Iīm searching for more: http://ship-model-today.de/sd072.htm
Thanks again!
P.S.: I donīt know, if that is useful, but I have found these drawings/pictures of Racks and K-Guns:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php
http://www.ship-model-today.de/auk-009.jpg
https://www.ussslater.org/tour/weapons/racks/racks.html
https://www.ussslater.org/tour/weapons/dpthchrg/dpthchrg.html
https://www.ussslater.org/tour/weapons/k-gun/k-gun.html
Sounds fantastic!
I have only found this link for drawings about Racks in the past, but Iīm searching for more: http://ship-model-today.de/sd072.htm
Thanks again!
P.S.: I donīt know, if that is useful, but I have found these drawings/pictures of Racks and K-Guns:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php
http://www.ship-model-today.de/auk-009.jpg
https://www.ussslater.org/tour/weapons/racks/racks.html
https://www.ussslater.org/tour/weapons/dpthchrg/dpthchrg.html
https://www.ussslater.org/tour/weapons/k-gun/k-gun.html
Good pictures are alway good but, for modelling, technical drawings are even better :salute:
Glad to see some action in this thread. Though i barely understand whats going on but I must say keep going!
Snow Rose
03-27-18, 01:40 PM
Love it. Always was a big complaint that They use unrealistic ASW in the game.
Love it. Always was a big complaint that They use unrealistic ASW in the game.
What is worse in my opinion, is the ludicrusly small number of weapons and ammo types featured in stock game. With such a limited stock of weapons available, is difficult simulating in a realistical way the evolution of ASW warfare throughout the war. I think this is the main pro of padi's mod :up:
Slyguy3129
03-28-18, 10:05 PM
I suppose this doesn't work with GWX3?
I suppose this doesn't work with GWX3?
No, because of a big bug in GWX I can't create a working mod for it.
The ships would only carry the early Mark VII/Mark 6 DCs and not the advanced ones.
@all:
After playing WAC for some hours I'm really impressed by the mod and I'm working on a version for it.
No, because of a big bug in GWX I can't create a working mod for it.
The ships would only carry the early Mark VII/Mark 6 DCs and not the advanced ones.
What bug? :06:
After playing WAC for some hours I'm really impressed by the mod and I'm working on a version for it.
Maybe I am overseeing something obvious, but to the the best of my understanding there is not reason for this mod being compatible/uncompatible with one particular mod configuration. Only damage levels (hit points) might need some finetunigs from one supermod to the other, due to different U-boat (and ASW escorts) damage settings :hmm2:
What bug? :06:
Maybe I am overseeing something obvious, but to the the best of my understanding there is not reason for this mod being compatible/uncompatible with one particular mod configuration. Only damage levels (hit points) might need some finetunigs from one supermod to the other, due to different U-boat (and ASW escorts) damage settings :hmm2:
The bug is that due to an error in the mission editor the ships are driving with 1939 equipment for the whole war...
The mod isn't compatible with other mods because I had to change the .eqp-file of any included ship, so the new DCs really work.
The bug is that due to an error in the mission editor the ships are driving with 1939 equipment for the whole war...
Really? :o
That's a lame bug. GWX has represented a standard and the state-of-art of SHIII modding for quite a long time. I am surprised that after all these years no one attempted to fix that error. Do you have any idea on its causes?
The mod isn't compatible with other mods because I had to change the .eqp-file of any included ship, so the new DCs really work.
That's true. Editing all those eqp files one by one can be a PITA. Not to mention the fact that some ASW vessels might need their equipment nodes moved or new ones added :doh:
Really? [emoji5]
That's a lame bug. GWX has represented a standard and the state-of-art of SHIII modding for quite a long time. I am surprised that after all these years no one attempted to fix that error. Do you have any idea on its causes?
In LSH and Ccom the Date-Bug is corrected. I don't know, if that's the case for WAC, but I'm sure that it isn't corrected in GWX...
The cause is a error in the mission editor, you have to fix it manually in the files.
That's true. Editing all those eqp files one by one can be a PITA. Not to mention the fact that some ASW vessels might need their equipment nodes moved or new ones added :doh:
Thats right, for example the Fletcher need to have two more K-Guns added...
In LSH and Ccom the Date-Bug is corrected. I don't know, if that's the case for WAC, but I'm sure that it isn't corrected in GWX...
The cause is a error in the mission editor, you have to fix it manually in the files.
I am not 100% sure but now that you make me to think about it, I might know what causes the problem and, if I am correct, the same issue might apply to SH5 too.
I am going by memory here: there is a series of parameters applying to each unit in campaign (i.e. camoufflage, equipment and sensors) whose value can be set to "early", "mid" and "late" within Mission Editor. In practice, these parameters overseed start/end dates in units' .cfg, .eqp and .sns files and they make the game to look for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd item in the sequence of upgrades applying to the same node/unit, regardless of date settings of that item. If I rememeber correctly, "early", "mid" and "late" visible in ME, translate to values of 0, 1 and 2 in the campaign/mission files, as we see them in notepad.
I have no proof of what I am going to say, but I think that for making date settings to be applied as supposed, those numbers must be set to -1. This is something that must be done manually, as ME doesn't allow this kind of setting.
Thats right, for example the Fletcher need to have two more K-Guns added...
:up:
Hebe Vollmaus
03-29-18, 11:59 AM
I am not 100% sure but now that you make me to think about it, I might know what causes the problem and, if I am correct, the same issue might apply to SH5 too.
I am going by memory here: there is a series of parameters applying to each unit in campaign (i.e. camoufflage, equipment and sensors) whose value can be set to "early", "mid" and "late" within Mission Editor. In practice, these parameters overseed start/end dates in units' .cfg, .eqp and .sns files and they make the game to look for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd item in the sequence of upgrades applying to the same node/unit, regardless of date settings of that item. If I rememeber correctly, "early", "mid" and "late" visible in ME, translate to values of 0, 1 and 2 in the campaign/mission files, as we see them in notepad.
I have no proof of what I am going to say, but I think that for making date settings to be applied as supposed, those numbers must be set to -1. This is something that must be done manually, as ME doesn't allow this kind of setting.
:up:
I am not shure of what bug from the MissionEditor ME you guys talking. Also i cannot find an equivalent of "early", "mid" and "late" in ME. But all "Big Modes" and even unmodified SH3 have Quirks (i wil not call them Errors) in the Campaigne_RND.mis as an failure of the ME, or maybe by intention.
In the past i was not able to see red rwr-lines (even if i doubled them) from an rwr-group on the NavigationMap with zoom 25 or greater, when only one ship in the group has a wrong CfgDate. Above i called this also intention, never will i forget these horrible moments came out of TC and WO tells something like "We are under attack, Sir", and a Destroyer around 1km behind me.
So for my own installation i have created a Tool wich is able to copy all GameEntryDate= to CfgDate= (in .RndUnit only) and these shocking moments are gone.
If this is not the Bug you guys talking about, please talk a bit more. :03:
Greetings.
[Edit]
Have found old threads.
and 2 links in post 7 about "Cfg-Bug".
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2084630
Thanks.
HanSolo78
03-29-18, 02:52 PM
In LSH and Ccom the Date-Bug is corrected. I don't know, if that's the case for WAC, but I'm sure that it isn't corrected in GWX...
The cause is a error in the mission editor, you have to fix it manually in the files.
As I read only some specific units have these problems... WAC5.0 also uses almost only generic units in the random campaign layer.
So most of the units should not have the problem.
As I read only some specific units have these problems... WAC5.0 also uses almost only generic units in the random campaign layer.
So most of the units should not have the problem.
Hi HanSolo, do you know what is causing the problem?
rudewarrior
03-29-18, 10:55 PM
I suppose this doesn't work with GWX3?
That's true. Editing all those eqp files one by one can be a PITA.
So, I have been following a couple of mods here, and I just thought I should go ahead and post. I am not going to claim to be an expert modder, but I (think I) have done some modding to make this work. I am willing to accept that I could be completely wrong.
The mods I have been following are the Real ASW mod, the Depth Charge noise mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=236655), and, to a lesser extent, the Torpedo Alarm Mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=236184).
Basically, I play a heavily mod-souped version of GWX. I have managed to mod the Real ASW Mod into it. I went through and modified all of the .cfg files (at least some of the time working with MFM 3.3 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=170741&highlight=merchant+fleet+mod) .cfg files) and all of the .eqp files (at least some of the time working with RCB's SH4 effects for SH3 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136018&highlight=racerboy+sh4+effects) mod). I basically powered through the PITA and edited all the files to incorporate padi's mod, and, well, I think it works. Later in the war, the depth charges seem more powerful and reach depth to explode a lot sooner, as it should (this is not empirically determined, tho, it just seems that way). It is also stable, considering the soupyness of my mod list.
Now, I have been working(-ish) with schlechter pfennig on his Depth Charge noise mod. I haven't been doing near as much as he. It seems also he has started running into a CTD problem that I was experiencing too (and I also experienced it with TDW's Depth charge water disturbances (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181513&highlight=water+disturbance)). I am going to let that play out a little bit, since he seems to be focused on getting it to work with WAC as opposed to GWX.
What I would like to see, is not only this mod working, but also working with the Depth Charge noise mod (and also the Torpedo Alarm Mod, since it generates DC's, which would in turn generate Bold decoys). It would be nice to see this combination of mods such that more powerful DC's exist later in the war, but you can still escape escorts that are DC only (obviously, with hedgehogs, it can get really bad). As a side note, I think it would be nice to have your torpedoes create disturbances too ala the Torpedo Alarm Mod, but that doesn't absolutely have to happen.
Ultimately, I don't know if this information will help anyone. But it seems to me that:
It works with GWX (albeit modded).
It is a great idea (keep up the good work).
It seems to be an idea that could work well with the Depth Charge noise mod (and others).
I really like it.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and I hope my rambling might help or inspire you in some way. :Kaleun_Cheers:
Thank you for your report rudewarrior.
Hopefully, when each new DC / DC dropping mechanism will have its own model, it will be a lot easier for us telling wether a certain upgrade has been applied when supposed. Talking about start/end dates though, we should keep in mind that the ones set in eqp and sns files seem to be randomized in game, as discussed in this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2468211#post2468211
Thank you for your report rudewarrior.
Hopefully, when each new DC / DC dropping mechanism will have its own model, it will be a lot easier for us telling wether a certain upgrade has been applied when supposed. Talking about start/end dates though, we should keep in mind that the ones set in eqp and sns files seem to be randomized in game, as discussed in this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2468211#post2468211
Interesting, never realized that...
I have only checked the year and not the exact date...
Interesting, never realized that...
I have only checked the year and not the exact date...
Apparently, start dates as set in game files are not to be considered the exact date that a certain equipment was fitted aboard a certain vessel, but the earliest date the said equipment started being fitted.
In other words, if you equip Fletcher-class destroyers with Mark 9 depth charges starting from March 1st, 1943, and then you run a mission with a little fleet of them taking place on the same date, it is possible that only a small number of vessels, or none at all, will have those DC's aboard. As in real life, it takes some time for upgrades to be fully adopted. If you change mission's date to mid March, you will see that an higher percent of destroyers will have the new DC model. I have not exact figures, but probably the game will require a few weeks, or maybe 2-3 months from its start date, for a new equipment to have a 100% chance of having been actually implemented :)
Apparently, start dates as set in game files are not to be considered the exact date that a certain equipment was fitted aboard a certain vessel, but the earliest date the said equipment started being fitted.
In other words, if you equip Fletcher-class destroyers with Mark 9 depth charges starting from March 1st, 1943, and then you run a mission with a little fleet of them taking place on the same date, it is possible that only a small number of vessels, or none at all, will have those DC's aboard. As in real life, it takes some time for upgrades to be fully adopted. If you change mission's date to mid March, you will see that an higher percent of destroyers will have the new DC model. I have not exact figures, but probably the game will require a few weeks, or maybe 2-3 months, for a new equipment to have a 100% chance of having been actually implemented :)
Sonds very good and realistic!
Sonds very good and realistic!
Yes, it is, at least for the purposes of this mod. Yet, it is not so realistic (but still not too bad) for those refits that are knows to have taken place within a certain timeframe, like gun refits aboard capital ships for instance. In those cases maybe it can be convenient anticipating the new equipments by 2-3 weeks compared to their historical appearance :03:
[Edit]
Have found old threads.
and 2 links in post 7 about "Cfg-Bug".
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2084630
Thanks.
Thank you Hebe, I had missed your edit. That should discard any compatibility issue between padi's mod and GWX :up:
I am not shure of what bug from the MissionEditor ME you guys talking. Also i cannot find an equivalent of "early", "mid" and "late" in ME.
You are right: I have just checked SHIII campaign files and, unlike SH5, there is no unit equipment, sensor nor camouflage entries there. So what I wrote yesterday about Mission Editor only applies to SH5, and maybe SH4... I tend to make a lot of confusion between the three games :D
In the past i was not able to see red rwr-lines (even if i doubled them) from an rwr-group on the NavigationMap with zoom 25 or greater, when only one ship in the group has a wrong CfgDate.
I don't quite get you here: what is an "rwr-group"? To me and in the context of WWII, RWR only has two meanings: "Radar Warning Receiver" and "Russian War Relief", but neither of them seems to apply to your sentence :doh:
Hebe Vollmaus
03-30-18, 09:04 AM
I don't quite get you here: what is an "rwr-group"? To me and in the context of WWII, RWR only has two meanings: "Radar Warning Receiver" and "Russian War Relief", but neither of them seems to apply to your sentence :doh:
Oh, sorry about that. rwr-group was false, it shoult has to be RND-Group.
What i mean is an [Goup X] of Warships in Campaigne_RND.mis with one ship which have CfgDate less then GameEntryDate.
Normaly, on Navigation-Map you get RWR Radar Warning Receiver lines from the whole group regardless of the zoom. But in this special case on zoom 25km and up i was not able see these lines.
Greetings.
Oh, sorry about that. rwr-group was false, it shoult has to be RND-Group.
What i mean is an [Goup X] of Warships in Campaigne_RND.mis with one ship which have CfgDate less then GameEntryDate.
Normaly, on Navigation-Map you get RWR Radar Warning Receiver lines from the whole group regardless of the zoom. But in this special case on zoom 25km and up i was not able see these lines.
Greetings.
Okay thanks, your explaination is totally clear now :up:
schlechter pfennig
03-30-18, 08:16 PM
I'd be happy to help integrate the depth charge noise mod with yours, and help out in other respects as well. I had a mod called "increased asw", so it's not like I'm not used to this particular area. :D
I'd be happy to help integrate the depth charge noise mod with yours, and help out in other respects as well. I had a mod called "increased asw", so it's not like I'm not used to this particular area. :D
I am not the initiator of this mod/thread, but as far as I am concerned you are welcome in the team schlechter pfennig!
Let's wait for padi to reply to your proposal of collaboration, and we will see how to best coordinate our respective skills. :salute:
I am not the initiator of this mod/thread, but as far as I am concerned you are welcome in the team schlechter pfennig!
Let's wait for padi to reply to your proposal of collaboration, and we will see how to best coordinate our respective skills. :salute:
I go with Gaps words all the way that your help is appreciated and I'm very happy that the team is gaining size and knowledge!
What mod do you mean with "advanced asw"?
I can't find a mod with that name...
I go with Gaps words all the way that your help is appreciated and I'm very happy that the team is gaining size and knowledge!
What mod do you mean with "advanced asw"?
I can't find a mod with that name...
:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Here is a possible work plan, divided in four main points:
Historical information collection:
- creating a complete list of ASW ships and aircraft represented in game and in the megamods we want to feature. This list should include among the others: destroyers, minelayers, destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes, sloops, submarine chasers, minesweepers, naval trawlers, torpedo boats, patrol vessels, patrol aircraft, carrier-based bombers and fighters and scout planes.
- creating a list of the main ASW weapons that we want to be featured in our mod with their specs, measures and (possibly) drawings, and with approximate introduction and disposal dates. This list should include sea- and airborne depth charges, bombs used in the anti-submarine role, torpedoes and rockets as well as their relevant dropping/throwing/launching gear. As far as depth charges and A/S bombs are concerned, I am at good point with this task. Later today or tomorrow I will post here my list.
- for each of the featured ships, researching number, arrangement, type and mark of ASW armamenets fitted aboard, also taking in account mid- and late-war refits. Probably padi has already collected most of this information.
- for each of the featured ships and aircraft, researching historical ammo outfits and bomb loads. Again, as far as ships and number of depth charges carried on them are concerned, I think the current version of ASW Mod is a good base to start from for creating such a list.
3D/2D work and importing of models in game:
a few days ago I have posted here a list of weapons I have already modelled (but not yet imported in game). This list had laready changed as I go on modelling new weapons. The final list will depend on the results of the histrorical research I proposed above. I suppose I will be in charge of the 3D modelling, but anyone who is familiar with Wings3D, Blender, 3dsMax or Maya is welcome to supplement my modest modelling skills (2D artists are also wellcome).
Damage modelling and testing:
- at the end of this post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2546926&postcount=89), I have posted a short list of articles on underwater explosion physics that we should read carefully and stick to when setting Min/MaxRadii and Min/MaxEF's as well as explosion ranges/impulses of the new ASW ammunition we want to model in game. I plan creating an excel spreadsheet with simplified formulas, for calculating those parameters based on type and weight of explosive charge (and maybe detonation depth). I will post it here when I got it ready, but maybe, if you are familiar with physics and formulas, you can have a glance at those articles yourselves: three brains are better than one... :)
- Once we have finished with the theory, we will have to check our new settings in game, for making sure that they give realistic results.
Visual effects:
in some of the articles I mentioned above, there are even formulas for calculating the shape and size of bubble sphere and water/foam column caused underwaterd and on surface by underwater detonations. Those factors vary depending on explosive weight and explosion depth. It would be cool (though not an high-priority feature) having maybe two or three realistic explosion effects, customized for use with depth charges/bombs of different sizes. I know Kendras was working on something similar (though not based on formulas), and if padi has not objections, I could ask him to join our team. He is the an excellent modder with many skills and ideas, and he is the king of particle effects :yep:
Please feel free to integrate this list, in case I forgot something :salute:
schlechter pfennig
03-31-18, 02:58 PM
I go with Gaps words all the way that your help is appreciated and I'm very happy that the team is gaining size and knowledge!
What mod do you mean with "advanced asw"?
I can't find a mod with that name...
I'd meant "increased ASW" :oops:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133227&highlight=increased+asw
(And yes, that's my old name)
I'd meant "increased ASW" :oops:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133227&highlight=increased+asw
(And yes, that's my old name)
Interesting :up:
Slyguy3129
03-31-18, 04:47 PM
So, I have been following a couple of mods here, and I just thought I should go ahead and post. I am not going to claim to be an expert modder, but I (think I) have done some modding to make this work. I am willing to accept that I could be completely wrong.
The mods I have been following are the Real ASW mod, the Depth Charge noise mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=236655), and, to a lesser extent, the Torpedo Alarm Mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=236184).
Basically, I play a heavily mod-souped version of GWX. I have managed to mod the Real ASW Mod into it. I went through and modified all of the .cfg files (at least some of the time working with MFM 3.3 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=170741&highlight=merchant+fleet+mod) .cfg files) and all of the .eqp files (at least some of the time working with RCB's SH4 effects for SH3 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136018&highlight=racerboy+sh4+effects) mod). I basically powered through the PITA and edited all the files to incorporate padi's mod, and, well, I think it works. Later in the war, the depth charges seem more powerful and reach depth to explode a lot sooner, as it should (this is not empirically determined, tho, it just seems that way). It is also stable, considering the soupyness of my mod list.
Now, I have been working(-ish) with schlechter pfennig on his Depth Charge noise mod. I haven't been doing near as much as he. It seems also he has started running into a CTD problem that I was experiencing too (and I also experienced it with TDW's Depth charge water disturbances (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181513&highlight=water+disturbance)). I am going to let that play out a little bit, since he seems to be focused on getting it to work with WAC as opposed to GWX.
What I would like to see, is not only this mod working, but also working with the Depth Charge noise mod (and also the Torpedo Alarm Mod, since it generates DC's, which would in turn generate Bold decoys). It would be nice to see this combination of mods such that more powerful DC's exist later in the war, but you can still escape escorts that are DC only (obviously, with hedgehogs, it can get really bad). As a side note, I think it would be nice to have your torpedoes create disturbances too ala the Torpedo Alarm Mod, but that doesn't absolutely have to happen.
Ultimately, I don't know if this information will help anyone. But it seems to me that:
It works with GWX (albeit modded).
It is a great idea (keep up the good work).
It seems to be an idea that could work well with the Depth Charge noise mod (and others).
I really like it.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and I hope my rambling might help or inspire you in some way. :Kaleun_Cheers:
Wow thanks for the reply. I'm not very confident in modding cfg files though. I'm just looking to maybe get this mod working with GWX3. But with the way downloads are so insanely limited I'd rather spend those precious few mbs getting a mod I know will work.
Downloaded one freaking mod yesterday, and I'm still on "cool down" on downloads. If only the internet had more than one website from which we could download from. Perhaps one day, technology will advance that far!
I'd meant "increased ASW" :oops:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133227&highlight=increased+asw
(And yes, that's my old name)
So I have read the list of features of the increased ASW mod by our schlechter pfennig / Albrecht Von Hesse, and I have a few remarks about some of them. I wanted to post my comments directly in the mod thread, but then I realized that the mod itself is no longer available, and that the last post in its thread dates back to when I wasn't even aware of subsim or Silent Hunter games. After all, I think I will post my remarks here rather than risking to be called a thread necromancer :03:
Here we go:
1) setting all bombs so that they detonate when they impact the water, or just below.
That would be correct for most bombs, including the (remarkably uneffective) British A/S bombs, used during the early part of the conflict. Matter of factly those bombs were commonly fitted with impact fuzes/pistols which could be set for triggering an explosion immediately or with a short delay, usually in the order of a few tens of seconds. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the US 500-lb and 1000-lb GP bombs could be fitted with hydrostatic fuzes, thus behaving as a normal depth charge.
Sources:
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. June 44 (http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/USNBD%20-%20US%20Bombs%20and%20Fuzes,%20Pyrotechnics,%20Lan d%20Mines,%20Firing%20Devices.pdf), pp. 45, 47 and 171
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. September 45 (http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/USNBD%20-%20US%20Bombs%20and%20Fuzes.pdf), pp. 51, 53, 251 and 253
2) setting the air depth charges to detonate at 9 meters (which isn't exactly historic, I'll admit; from what I've been able to research 7.9 meters seems to be the 'normal' depth setting, although I've only been able to find the tech details for British air depth charges so far).
According to John Campbell (Naval Weapons of World War Two, 1985 (https://books.google.it/books?id=TpJTNm6eKEMC&hl=it&source=gbs_book_other_versions), p. 94):
"The original pistol setting of 50ft (15m) was too deep for aircraft attack on a surfaced U-boat and it was reduced to 25ft (7.6m) in 1942"
This is referred to the British Mk. VII airborne DC, but it probably applies to other aircraft depth charges used ny the British. An user in navweaps' discussion board quotes (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/aerial-depth-charges-of-wwii-t23858.html?sid=c178e5c34b6c01d3451e71e708b06cbd#p 395478) another source (a link to is provided, but it is no longer available online):
"In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary.
Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres."
This is probably referred to US depth bombs. The two pamphlets by Navy Bomb Disposal School I mentioned above (dated summer 1944 and autumn 1945) specify for all the hydrostatic fuzes used with air ordnance depth settings in steps of 25ft, from 25ft (7.6m) to 125ft (38.1m), but I think only the 25ft setting was used in practice.
3) setting the 'explosiveness' of air depth charges to match up to the weight of explosives they normally carried.
The 'explosiveness' of depth charges (and thus the damage they can cause at a given distance) should be roughly proportional to the cubic root of the weight of its explosive filling multiplied by its TNT equivalency factor. You can find the relevant formulas in any of the articles I linked towards the end of post #89 in this thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2546926&postcount=89).
4) setting the sink rate of air depth charges to match the historical sink rates.
I am curious to know your settings. Unfortunately I couldn't find much information on this respect, except for the British Mk VII air depth charge probably had a terminal velocity equal or similar to its surface counterpart (i.e. 9.9 fps, 3.02 mps, source: United Kingdom / Britain
ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Mark_VII_Airborne_DC)). Both navweaps.com and Campbell list the illogical figure of 600 fps (183 mps!) as terminal velocity of the streamlined Mark VIII 250-lb a/c depth charge, but I regard it as a typo. No information at all on the sinking speeds of US depth bombs.
5) modified the Catalina, Sunderland, Wellington, select Liberator and select Fortress aircraft with ASW loadouts.
I think you forgot here the embarked bombers, fighters and scout planes, which also played an important role in WWII A/S warfare.
Most British DDs and DEs begin carrying the Mark VII heavy depth charges starting September 1942. The Mark VII heavy had a somewhat improved sink rate from the addition of lead to the depth charge.
That's probably a bit too late. According to navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Mark_VII_Heavy), the Mark VII heavy depth charge was introduced in service in 1940. This is in accordance with Cambell (op. cit, p. 89) who states the end of 1940 as time frame for its introduction.
US DDs and DEs begin carrying the Mark 9 'fast sinker' depth charge starting June 1943. Designed to sink fast and detonate at up to 1000 feet, the Mark 9 was aerodynamically shaped, lead-weighted and finned.
There were two main versions of the Mark 9: the first version (depth charge Mk. 9 and Mk. 9 Mod. 1) had a terminal velocity of 14.5 fps (4.4 mps) and it entered service in spring 1943. The second version, called Mk. 9 Mod. 2, was further improved "by means of a finer setting of the tail and added lead". This came at the sacrifice of explosive power, but it resulted in a maximun sinking speed of 22.7 fps (6.9 mps). In a personal note, I have noted august 1943 as date for the introduction of this later version, though honestly I cannot find the source for it. For all the other information reported here, the sources are:
John Campbell, op. cit, p. 163
United States of America ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php#Mark_9)
Depth Charge, Mark 9 and Modifications: Descriptinėon and instructions for Use, Bureau of Ordnance, February, 1944 (https://maritime.org/doc/depthcharge9/index.htm)
2) setting the air depth charges to detonate at 9 meters (which isn't exactly historic, I'll admit; from what I've been able to research 7.9 meters seems to be the 'normal' depth setting, although I've only been able to find the tech details for British air depth charges so far).
According to John Campbell (Naval Weapons of World War Two, 1985 (https://books.google.it/books?id=TpJTNm6eKEMC&hl=it&source=gbs_book_other_versions), p. 94):
"The original pistol setting of 50ft (15m) was too deep for aircraft attack on a surfaced U-boat and it was reduced to 25ft (7.6m) in 1942"
This is referred to the British Mk. VII airborne DC, but it probably applies to other aircraft depth charges used ny the British. An user in navweaps' discussion board quotes (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/aerial-depth-charges-of-wwii-t23858.html?sid=c178e5c34b6c01d3451e71e708b06cbd#p 395478) another source (a link to is provided, but it is no longer available online):
"In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary.
Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres."
This is probably referred to US depth bombs. The two pamphlets by Navy Bomb Disposal School I mentioned above (dated summer 1944 and autumn 1945) specify for all the hydrostatic fuzes used with air ordnance depth settings in steps of 25ft, from 25ft (7.6m) to 125ft (38.1m), but I think only the 25ft setting was used in practice.
Quick update from the USNBD Pamphlet "British Bombs and Fuzes, Pyrotechnics, Detonators", November, 1944 Ed.
Apparently, the hydrostatic pistols that could be used with British a/c depth charge were as follows:
Pistol Mk. X** (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section02/Page257.HTM) (obsolete by the date of publication):
Depth settings: 50, 100 and 150 ft (15.2, 30.5 and 45.7 m respectively)
DC's used on: Mk. VII (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section01/Page203.HTM) and VIII (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section01/Page081.HTM)
Pistols Mk. XIV and XIV* (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section02/Page259.HTM) (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 14-18 ft (4.3-5.5 m)
DC's used on: Mk. VII (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section01/Page203.HTM), VIII (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section01/Page081.HTM), XI and XI* (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section01/Page079.HTM)
Pistols Mk. XVI and XVI* (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section02/Page259.HTM) (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 20-24 ft (6.1-7.3 m)
DC's used on: as above
Pistol Mk. XIX (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section02/Page261.HTM) (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 20-24 ft (6.1-7.3 m)
DC's used on: Mk. XI and XI* (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section01/Page079.HTM) with Mk. IV tail
Pistol Mk. XX (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/USNBD/GBR/BombsAndFuzesUK/Section02/Page261.HTM) (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 14-18 ft (4.3-5.5 m)
DC's used on: as above
Summing up: after all, unlike stated by post-war sources, British a/c depth charges could be set to detonate at depths shallower than 25ft. Indeed, we don't know how reliable/effective were the shallowest pistols (Mk. XIV and XX, 14-18 ft), and how common they were.
Incidentally: happy Easter guys :)
I'd meant "increased ASW" :oops:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133227&highlight=increased+asw
(And yes, that's my old name)
Ok. Then, as you probably already knew from our PMs, my mod is based on the idea and, with your ok via PM, on your Mark 9 model...
@ padi
Niume anticipated me: during the last few days I have been wondering if you had made any progress with your mod. Since the last time we have discussed about it, I have added a few new models to my collection of 3D ASW ordnance. Models I have (more or less) ready so far are:
US 300 lb depth charge Mark 6 / Mark 6 Mod 1 + throwing arbor
US 600 lb depth charge Mark 7 / Mark 7 Mod 1
US 200 lb depth charges Mark 9 / Mark 9 Mod 1 and Mark 9 Mod 2 + throwing arbors
GB 300 lb depth charge Type D Mark III (this one was a WWI depth charge but, according to navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Type_D_Mark_III) still in service as late as 1940)
GB 290 lb depth charges Mark VII and Mark VII heavy
GB hedgehog / US mousetrap projectile (according to John Campbell's "Naval Weapons of WWII" , a version of the latter was modified for being fired or dropped (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/kingfisheraddendadb_1.htm) from patrol aircraft)
GB squid laucher and projectile (those models are already part of a mod by LGN1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2353351#post2353351))
GB 60 lb HE and 25 lb AP RP-3 rockets + rail
US 3.5-Inch and 5-inch FFAR rockets + rail (I hope at some moment my rocket models will be merged with Kendras' WIP rockets mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2452985#post2452985))
GB 100 lb A/S bombs Mk. III, IV and VI
GB 250 lb A/S bombs Mk. III and IV
GB 500 lb A/S bomb Mk. IV
US 325 lb Mk. 17 / 350 lb Mk. 44 depth bomb
US 350 lb Mk. 41 / Mk. 47 depth bombs
US 325 lb Mk. 53 / 350 lb Mk. 54 depth bomb
US 650 lb Mk. 29 and Mk. 37 depth bombs
US 650 lb Mk. 38 / 700 lb Mk. 49 depth bomb
Do you think that it is also possible to simulate the Mark X DC?
I have tried that years ago but coudn't archive a working result...
Do you think that it is also possible to simulate the Mark X DC?
I have tried that years ago but coudn't archive a working result...
mmm... I wish we could, though it doesn't seem to have been used very much during the war, anyway there are quite a few con's in adding it in game:
Its big kill range meant that the Mark X DC could only be used against deep targets. Its slow sinking speed allowed the launching ship to get clear of the explosion while sailing at full speed. I doubt that AI destroyers would manage the same tactic, and they would end up suiciding themselves more often than they hit any target.
This DC was lauched from 21 in torpedo tubes. We should invent some trick in order to simulate this in game.
We don't have a 3d model for it, and so far I couldn't find any picture/drawing or even measures of it.
I we find a way to get round the problems above, I say why not? Maybe we will get some nice idea, or some subsim comrade will give us some clue. In the meanwhile, my opinion is to focus on other and more important aspects... :hmm2:
Historical information collection:
- creating a complete list of ASW ships and aircraft represented in game and in the megamods we want to feature. This list should include among the others: destroyers, minelayers, destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes, sloops, submarine chasers, minesweepers, naval trawlers, torpedo boats, patrol vessels, patrol aircraft, carrier-based bombers and fighters and scout planes.
- creating a list of the main ASW weapons that we want to be featured in our mod with their specs, measures and (possibly) drawings, and with approximate introduction and disposal dates. This list should include sea- and airborne depth charges, bombs used in the anti-submarine role, torpedoes and rockets as well as their relevant dropping/throwing/launching gear. As far as depth charges and A/S bombs are concerned, I am at good point with this task. Later today or tomorrow I will post here my list.
- for each of the featured ships, researching number, arrangement, type and mark of ASW armamenets fitted aboard, also taking in account mid- and late-war refits. Probably padi has already collected most of this information.
- for each of the featured ships and aircraft, researching historical ammo outfits and bomb loads. Again, as far as ships and number of depth charges carried on them are concerned, I think the current version of ASW Mod is a good base to start from for creating such a list.
First, we have to agree on which mods we want to focus on. I would suggest WAC and GWX for first with focus on WAC because it is the newest, what do you two think?
I'm creating list one for WAC in the following days, easter is family day...
After that is finished I create list three and then the same for the other basemods that we agree on.
First, we have to agree on which mods we want to focus on. I would suggest WAC and GWX for first with focus on WAC because it is the newest, what do you two think?
I'm creating list one for WAC in the following days, easter is family day...
After that is finished I create list three and then the same for the other basemods that we agree on.
Sounds good to me :up:
In my previous post I forgot to ask what was your experience when you attempted to model the Mark X DC in game :)
Sounds good to me :up:
In my previous post I forgot to ask what was your experience when you attempted to model the Mark X DC in game :)
It was only beginner-style...
I had attemted to include a depthcharge-fire controller to the torpedo tubes and have added them into the .eqp.
As I know now that couldn't work...
It was only beginner-style...
I had attemted to include a depthcharge-fire controller to the torpedo tubes and have added them into the .eqp.
As I know now that couldn't work...
Okay, in future we will work on it. Now, as you said, time for our families :up: :D
schlechter pfennig
04-01-18, 04:01 PM
Ok. Then, as you probably already knew from our PMs, my mod is based on the idea and, with your ok via PM, on your Mark 9 model...
Yup! And I have to say that what you've done is a huge improvement. I might have started work on increasing the realism of ASW, but you've taken it miles and miles beyond what I'd started.
:Kaleun_Salute::Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Cheers:
Hi schlechter pfennig
have you seen these? #128 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2547632&postcount=128) and #129 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2547657&postcount=129)
I realize that after many years since you last worked on your increased ASW mod, you might not have an answer to all my remarks on it, but since you offered to help with padi's mod, I ask you to do an effort and to give me your opinion about at least on of the topics I raised:
I am curious to know your [airborne DC sinking speed] settings. Unfortunately I couldn't find much information on this respect, except for the British Mk VII air depth charge probably had a terminal velocity equal or similar to its surface counterpart (i.e. 9.9 fps, 3.02 mps, source: United Kingdom / Britain
ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Mark_VII_Airborne_DC)). Both navweaps.com and Campbell list the illogical figure of 600 fps (183 mps!) as terminal velocity of the streamlined Mark VIII 250-lb a/c depth charge, but I regard it as a typo. No information at all on the sinking speeds of US depth bombs.
Thank you :salute:
schlechter pfennig
04-06-18, 10:35 PM
Hi schlechter pfennig
have you seen these? #128 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2547632&postcount=128) and #129 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2547657&postcount=129)
I realize that after many years since you last worked on your increased ASW mod, you might not have an answer to all my remarks on it, but since you offered to help with padi's mod, I ask you to do an effort and to give me your opinion about at least on of the topics I raised:
Thank you :salute:
I had no intention of being rude or dismissive. All of my info came from online research and was at least two computers ago. I've been trying to resurrect my oldest pc that should have all my research materials on it. Basically, I can confirm that any and all of my decisions were founded on articles (the majority military in nature). I've also been distracted trying to debug the CTD issue with the depth charge noise mod, something that's been taking roughly 8 hours a day of focused time, and that also distracted me from a speedy reply.
I'll try and go through the noted posts and make replies to them in the next few days.
I had no intention of being rude or dismissive....
Schlechter pfennig you haven't been neither rude nor dismissive. I never thought that, and I am sorry if I gave you that impression. On the contary I realize how busy you have been with your other mod, and I share your frustration about it.
I should have started my post of yesterday night by saying that, but I forgot to. Anyway... just take it as a friendly reminder, and take your time on those replies.
I am not in a hurry :salute:
schlechter pfennig
04-08-18, 09:11 PM
I resurrected my old XP; the files aren't on that one, so they must be on my old(er) 98 HD. That, I'm afraid, may take me quite some time to access.
- creating a complete list of ASW ships and aircraft represented in game and in the megamods we want to feature. This list should include among the others: destroyers, minelayers, destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes, sloops, submarine chasers, minesweepers, naval trawlers, torpedo boats, patrol vessels, patrol aircraft, carrier-based bombers and fighters and scout planes.
This part of the preparation is finished.
You could find the file here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/f9zxa1l7jjjnoqa/ASW-Waffen%20und%20Flugzeuge%20mit%20Nationalit%E4ten. ods
In the first tab you have the classnames of the ingame destroyers and the nations in which rosters they are included.
In the second tab I have faced the classnames and the real names.
In the third tab we have all the aircraft in game and their nationalities. I donīt know, if they carry ASW-gear, but I have written them anyway...
Iīm now working on part three. What do you think which nationalities we could feature?
GB and US should be sure, whats about french, polish and italian DCs?
schlechter pfennig
05-01-18, 01:44 PM
I have been unable to ressurrect my oldest HD, so I'm going to try replying "off-the-cuff" to these as best as I can.
That would be correct for most bombs, including the (remarkably uneffective) British A/S bombs, used during the early part of the conflict. Matter of factly those bombs were commonly fitted with impact fuzes/pistols which could be set for triggering an explosion immediately or with a short delay, usually in the order of a few tens of seconds. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the US 500-lb and 1000-lb GP bombs could be fitted with hydrostatic fuzes, thus behaving as a normal depth charge.
Sources:
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. June 44 (http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/USNBD%20-%20US%20Bombs%20and%20Fuzes,%20Pyrotechnics,%20Lan d%20Mines,%20Firing%20Devices.pdf), pp. 45, 47 and 171
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. September 45 (http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/USNBD%20-%20US%20Bombs%20and%20Fuzes.pdf), pp. 51, 53, 251 and 253
That is a really good point. The major problem that I'd experienced (and this applies to several of the following points as well) is that SH3 gives a limited "palette" of choices, so at times I had to maximize effects by making assumptions. So, for instance, in this case, aircraft had a loadout choice of either depth charge or bomb; I elected to assume that if the designer wished for the aircraft's armament to explode at depth (either as a depth charge or a hydrostatic fuze-set bomb), then they would select "depth charge", and if they wanted it to explode on the surface, they would select "bomb". Therefore, I decided to set all bombs as surface impact.
According to John Campbell (Naval Weapons of World War Two, 1985 (https://books.google.it/books?id=TpJTNm6eKEMC&hl=it&source=gbs_book_other_versions), p. 94):
"The original pistol setting of 50ft (15m) was too deep for aircraft attack on a surfaced U-boat and it was reduced to 25ft (7.6m) in 1942"
This is referred to the British Mk. VII airborne DC, but it probably applies to other aircraft depth charges used ny the British. An user in navweaps' discussion board quotes (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/aerial-depth-charges-of-wwii-t23858.html?sid=c178e5c34b6c01d3451e71e708b06cbd#p 395478) another source (a link to is provided, but it is no longer available online):
"In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary.
Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres."
This is probably referred to US depth bombs. The two pamphlets by Navy Bomb Disposal School I mentioned above (dated summer 1944 and autumn 1945) specify for all the hydrostatic fuzes used with air ordnance depth settings in steps of 25ft, from 25ft (7.6m) to 125ft (38.1m), but I think only the 25ft setting was used in practice.
This is extremely interesting. I hadn't encountered this information before, and had I known that I would have incorporated the depth setting change(s) for the applicable ordnance. I do know that I had used information I'd researched to decide on that setting, but it's obvious that here, as elsewhere, you'd done a lot more comprehensive research than I had.
The 'explosiveness' of depth charges (and thus the damage they can cause at a given distance) should be roughly proportional to the cubic root of the weight of its explosive filling multiplied by its TNT equivalency factor. You can find the relevant formulas in any of the articles I linked towards the end of post #89 in this thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2546926&postcount=89).
I hadn't had access to that article, and honestly I forget how I'd calculated the 'explosiveness' factor. However, that article is perfect for doing exactly that!
I am curious to know your settings. Unfortunately I couldn't find much information on this respect, except for the British Mk VII air depth charge probably had a terminal velocity equal or similar to its surface counterpart (i.e. 9.9 fps, 3.02 mps, source: United Kingdom / Britain
ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Mark_VII_Airborne_DC)). Both navweaps.com and Campbell list the illogical figure of 600 fps (183 mps!) as terminal velocity of the streamlined Mark VIII 250-lb a/c depth charge, but I regard it as a typo. No information at all on the sinking speeds of US depth bombs.
I had found several articles (all of which are on my deceased HD) that dealt specifically with air depth charges. They detailed how pilots were trained to aim, target and drop them, their design features and revisions, etc. I used the information gleaned there to set the characteristics.
I think you forgot here the embarked bombers, fighters and scout planes, which also played an important role in WWII A/S warfare.
GWX just had so many different aircraft, and roles they were used in, that I probably did overlook that.
That's probably a bit too late. According to navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.php#Mark_VII_Heavy), the Mark VII heavy depth charge was introduced in service in 1940. This is in accordance with Cambell (op. cit, p. 89) who states the end of 1940 as time frame for its introduction.
I used the dates provided by the research materials that I had access to at the time, which doesn't seem to be as comprehensive as your sources are.
There were two main versions of the Mark 9: the first version (depth charge Mk. 9 and Mk. 9 Mod. 1) had a terminal velocity of 14.5 fps (4.4 mps) and it entered service in spring 1943. The second version, called Mk. 9 Mod. 2, was further improved "by means of a finer setting of the tail and added lead". This came at the sacrifice of explosive power, but it resulted in a maximun sinking speed of 22.7 fps (6.9 mps). In a personal note, I have noted august 1943 as date for the introduction of this later version, though honestly I cannot find the source for it. For all the other information reported here, the sources are:
John Campbell, op. cit, p. 163
United States of America ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php#Mark_9)
Depth Charge, Mark 9 and Modifications: Descriptinėon and instructions for Use, Bureau of Ordnance, February, 1944 (https://maritime.org/doc/depthcharge9/index.htm)
Again, it seems as if your research sources are more detailed and comprehensive as mine are/were.
In closing, I cannot argue or dispute any of your points, or reasonings and, in fact, would have incorporated those into my mod had I been aware of them.
:Kaleun_Salute:
Sorry for the late feed-back guys, family problems have absorbed most of my time during the last month; now I am slowly getting back to normality. I am preparing my replies to your unaswered posts. Just stay tuned and keep patient a few more days :salute:
Sorry for the late feed-back guys, family problems have absorbed most of my time during the last month; now I am slowly getting back to normality. I am preparing my replies to your unaswered posts. Just stay tuned and keep patient a few more days :salute:
No problem, I hope you will be fine soon.
I also was in holiday so I haven't made progress in the last month...
I think that it would take some time because I have personal problems since a few months and not that many time for research...
IS this mod compatible with wac 5.1?
IS this mod compatible with wac 5.1?
Sadly no because I have experienced positioning problems with the DC Racks which I'm not able to fix...
There is anything different with the Racks than in vanilla and the other mods and even changing them to vanilla doesn't fix that.
Sadly no because I have experienced positioning problems with the DC Racks which I'm not able to fix...
There is anything different with the Racks than in vanilla and the other mods and even changing them to vanilla doesn't fix that.
So the only problem is bad dc rack positioning
schlechter pfennig
05-15-18, 11:02 AM
So the only problem is bad dc rack positioning
That probably explains the clemson dc rack problem I'd noticed.
That probably explains the clemson dc rack problem I'd noticed.
Possible, but I also experienced the same problem when I reconfigured the racks to vanilla.
But I have only tested that on the Buckley and Evarts...
HanSolo78
05-17-18, 01:51 PM
@Padi
Maybe there is a duplicated ID or a name conflict!
I converted SH4 DC racks to SH3 and made single files called: DC_R_KG_SH4 & DC_X_H_SH4.
I created new IDs and new names... but maybe they conflict with yours.
@Padi
Maybe there is a duplicated ID or a name conflict!
I converted SH4 DC racks to SH3 and made single files called: DC_R_KG_SH4 & DC_X_H_SH4.
I created new IDs and new names... but maybe they conflict with yours.
I have checked that and there are no name or ID-conflicts.
For bughunting I have deactivated my mod and created a mod only with the .eqp of the Buckley, in which I have changed the name of one Rack to the vanilla name. The vanilla DC Rack had the wrong position, the SH4-Rack was positioned correct.
Just a quick preview of one of my latest creations, the 20 lb HE (Cooper) bomb:
https://i.imgur.com/XxXtfW4.png
This was an anti-personnel weapon, first introduced during WWI, but going by Ark Royal's official war diary (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-04CV-Ark%20Royal.htm), the bomb was still part of ammo loadouts usually carried by Blackburn Skuas and Fairey Swordfish aboard the British carrier as late as July 1940. Useless to say that in the ASW role it was totally useless, but they called them "happy times" for a reason :D
If you don't mind me spamming your thread with more examples of the work I have done during the last months, I will post more in the next few days, together with some info I have collected in the meanwhile about ASW planes and the ordnance they carried :salute:
Sorry that it had took so lang, I had health issues again and also at that temperature beeing at the lake is nicer than on the computer...
I have finished the research of the british and US ships, only for 5 classes I was unable to find all informations...
I thought that I should share the informations after they are finished and not after all the nations are finished...
Here you can find the document: http://www.mediafire.com/file/wucf0hx4tdkjc19/Shipclasses.ods
Mad Mardigan
07-13-18, 09:36 PM
Following this with bated breath... since I have SH3 married to GWX, LSH3-2015 & finally WAC 5.0, which I have to say, I love for the almost completely realistic look of the water & the subs... crew, needs some further tweaking, but look a lot better than either stock SH3, GWX or LSH3, which in the aforementioned mod versions, the crew kinda have a minecraft'ish look to them, standing still... they are fine, as it where... when they move, well... that's where the minecraft reference comes into play.. WAC 5.0, it is still there, but not as bad as with the other mods...
As it goes, I have to agree, the effects of depth charges seems to be... lacking punch, when it affects your sub, in the aspect of depth of explosion, distance of the explosion to your sub.
Any way, to get back on track... know that it was mentioned of
[QUOTE=Niume]
IS this mod compatible with wac 5.1?
[QUOTE=padi][QUOTE=Niume]
Sadly no because I have experienced positioning problems with the DC Racks which I'm not able to fix...
There is anything different with the Racks than in vanilla and the other mods and even changing them to vanilla doesn't fix that.
but just want to get a clear definitive understanding, of mods, that this will be available for...
GWX y/n ???
LSH3 y/n ???
WAC y/n ??? (Has the situation changed for mod work, for WAC or is there no hope for WAC to have this mod work with it & time to pull the plug on any hope for it to work with WAC...
As I said, just want to have a clear definitive understanding...
Know that modding takes a lot of time, know how & patience... so know that your efforts in working on this is appreciated, Thanks.
Mad Mardigan
but just want to get a clear definitive understanding, of mods, that this will be available for...
GWX y/n ???
LSH3 y/n ???
WAC y/n ??? (Has the situation changed for mod work, for WAC or is there no hope for WAC to have this mod work with it & time to pull the plug on any hope for it to work with WAC...
As I said, just want to have a clear definitive understanding...
Know that modding takes a lot of time, know how & patience... so know that your efforts in working on this is appreciated, Thanks.
Mad Mardigan
Hi,
Iīm at the moment only working on a version for WAC.
LSH3 is bad and not worth any efforts, so it is not supported.
GWX is outdated and now not supported, maybe later...
Hi,
whatīs your opinion about this?
I suggest that we create sample files with right positioning and performance, then add in the ships from which we have the full overview of the weapons carried and subsequently add in the additional classes as soon as we get the data...
I think I have finally found a working solution for the wrong positioning.
Are you still interested in working together?
I have continued alone since I have heard nothing from you so that the only things missing for the first test version are the Library-files (Depthcharges, Throwers, Racks) and data about some exotic ships which I havenīt been able to find...
Greetings
P.S.: Your private message storage capacity is exceeded.
I have finally solved the problem of the wrong positioning of DC Racks, it was due to some ships being optimized to the vanilla racks and some to the SH4 version, which is implemented into WAC...
This sadly also means, that for now the nice Mark 9 DC model isnīt working and wonīt be used until I correct all .datīs, which is that much work that I only do that after I have created all the 3D-models in a future version.
Anvar1061
05-04-19, 06:15 AM
I have finally solved the problem
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/Kaleun_Thumbs_Up-1.gif
Hi @all,
the creation of the mod is going slow but steady, 13 shipclasses are already created and successfully tested and debugged.
But now Iīm experiencing problems with the data collection for the Flower class corvettes.
They were used by the australians, english, canadians, free french, greece, indians, norwegians and south africans.
If I want to do it the right way I have to create the corresponding data for all these different countries.
Sadly I have problems finding the necessary information for them.
The only information I have found was for the british and it was the following:
For the Flower class:
2 Racks
2 K Guns
40 DCs
For the Flower Mod class:
2 Racks
4 K Guns
70 DCs
1 Hedgehog
The first Flower Mod was commisioned in june 1943 by the RN which was the date I have chosen to switch from the data for the Flower to those for the Flower Mod.
I would be very grateful if someone could help with some data:up:
Anvar1061
07-11-19, 12:48 AM
If I remember correctly, then the armament in the ship's eqp, and not in the cfg Rosters. And it is not possible without adding new models to change this. Make it all British Standard.
If I remember correctly, then the armament in the ship's eqp, and not in the cfg Rosters. And it is not possible without adding new models to change this. Make it all British Standard.
It is easily possible with the use of country specific loadouts.
Look at the Clemson or Hunt I in my last released version for a hint how it works.
The disadvantage of this approach is, that the campaign has to be modified, but that isn't that much work, but sadly has to be repeated after every WAC-release...
And if someone has information about any class I would gladly incorporate that because researching takes 75-80% of the whole working time.[emoji106][emoji1]
hauangua
07-11-19, 05:39 AM
It is easily possible with the use of country specific loadouts.
Look at the Clemson or Hunt I in my last released version for a hint how it works.
The disadvantage of this approach is, that the campaign has to be modified, but that isn't that much work, but sadly has to be repeated after every WAC-release...
And if someone has information about any class I would gladly incorporate that because researching takes 75-80% of the whole working time.[emoji106][emoji1]
The Flower class had been designed for inshore patrol and harbour anti-submarine defence; therefore, many required minor modifications when the Allied navies began deploying these vessels as trans-Atlantic convoy escorts. These small warships could be supported by any small dockyard or naval station, so many ships came to have a variety of different weapons systems and design modifications depending upon when and where they were refitted; there is really no such thing as a 'standard Flower-class corvette.
Here 3 French class Flower for example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_corvette_Alysse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_corvette_Roselys
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_corvette_Aconit
The Flower class had been designed for inshore patrol and harbour anti-submarine defence; therefore, many required minor modifications when the Allied navies began deploying these vessels as trans-Atlantic convoy escorts. These small warships could be supported by any small dockyard or naval station, so many ships came to have a variety of different weapons systems and design modifications depending upon when and where they were refitted; there is really no such thing as a 'standard Flower-class corvette.
Here 3 French class Flower for example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_corvette_Alysse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_corvette_Roselys
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_corvette_Aconit
Unfortunately that didnīt help creating the loadouts.
I already have read everything Wikipedia has to offer, but that only help a littlebit, but not to that level that I need. I havenīt found other sources for the DCs, only for the artillery...
I need much more specific data, like this very useful help about the polish grom class destroyers for which Iīm still grateful.
ORP Błyskawica and ORP Grom were previously (just after building) equipped with two DC racks and 20 BH 200 DCs onboard, some authors say about two additional Thornycroft DC throwers (don't know specific model), but probably that is a mistake.
For sure ORP Błyskawica (ORP Grom was lost in 1940 during German invasion of Norway) was equipped with four Thornycraft Mk.IV DCTs after 20 June 1941.
If we are talking about ORP Burza and ORP Wicher (similar to French Bourrasque destroyers) that their antisubmarine weapons looked like this:
1. from building to 1939 they were equipped with two DC racks for 20 BH 200 DCs supply and one Thornycroft DCT for 10 BH 200 supply, but some authors say that DCT was removed in 1934 (ORP Wicher was sunk by German planes in September 1939).
2. from 1940 to 1942 two DC racks for 20 DCs supply and two Thornycroft DCTs for 20 DCs supply.
3. from 1942 to 1945 two DC racks, four Thornycroft Mk.IV DCTs and one Hedgehog.
I hope it helps you with your work mate :up:
But regardless of that thanks for your attempted help here:up:
Anvar1061
07-14-19, 01:13 PM
But regardless of that thanks for your attempted help here:up:
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/Kaleun_Wink.gif
https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class/42.html
https://www.scalemates.com/books/img/8/5/6/104856-10000-85-pristine.jpg
http://mirageswar.com/flot/8402-the-flower-class-corvette-agassiz.html
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/Kaleun_Wink.gif
https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class/42.html
https://www.scalemates.com/books/img/8/5/6/104856-10000-85-pristine.jpg
http://mirageswar.com/flot/8402-the-flower-class-corvette-agassiz.html
Thanks, that book is really interesting, but not that much for me:03:
But it helps a bit.
I have just decided to equip all the nationalities except the French with the english loadout and correct that later because I didnīt think that I could accomplish this needed level of detail (what and how much from when to when) in the next time...
Greetings
Noobicum4Ever
07-19-19, 03:09 PM
Im trying to read and understand what's happening on this forum. I need some help after reading the posts on this topic:
1) I did not understand what "ccom" is?
2) how to install this mode?
3) ASW mod is compatible with MFM mod?
4) Can I install this mode after I have 14 patrols in the campaign?
PS: The research work you have done is impressive. I think any new Uboat game can use this information.
'm trying to read and understand what's happening on this forum. I need some help after reading the posts on this topic:
1) I did not understand what "ccom" is?
2) how to install this mode?
3) ASW mod is compatible with MFM mod?
4) Can I install this mode after I have 14 patrols in the campaign?
PS: The research work you have done is impressive. I think any new Uboat game can use this information.
1.) Ccom is a modpack for SH3 which was the basis for the previous versions of this mod. Now the basis is the excellent WAC-mod, which is better in any aspect.
2.) You activate it via JSGME as the last mod.
3.) That are only merchants?! If so there is no problem...
4.) You could install it during a campaign, but only between patrols (in port).
PS: They have to ask, as usual.
Noobicum4Ever
07-20-19, 01:56 AM
1.) Ccom is a modpack for SH3 which was the basis for the previous versions of this mod.
...
PS: They have to ask, as usual.
Thank you Padi. This mod make this game so realistic and this is what I want.
Do you now if the new games Uboat and Wolfpack use your ASW data ore something like your ASW mod?
Thank you Padi. This mod make this game so realistic and this is what I want.
Do you now if the new games Uboat and Wolfpack use your ASW data ore something like your ASW mod?
No, they haven't asked and because of that they didn't use my data.
But because of the complexity I didn't think that anyone want to use that level of detail in a commercial game...
Noobicum4Ever
07-20-19, 04:38 AM
No, they haven't asked and because of that they didn't use my data.
But because of the complexity I didn't think that anyone want to use that level of detail in a commercial game...
:k_confused:
:k_confused:
That's so much work, but it is barely recognisable for a casual gamer...
Noboys wants to put in developing cost for that kind of things...
Noobicum4Ever
07-20-19, 09:16 AM
That's so much work, but it is barely recognisable for a casual gamer...
Noboys wants to put in developing cost for that kind of things...
An Uboat game has two main parts: attacking the conyoy and avoiding escorts (destroyers, frigates, corvettes).
A true simulation of ASW is necessary!
Practically ASW with MFM are great!
Anyway I am glad to meet this kind of people!
An Uboat game has two main parts: attacking the conyoy and avoiding escorts (destroyers, frigates, corvette).
A true simulation of ASW is necessary!
Practically ASW with MFM are great!
Anyway I am glad to meet this kind of people!
As said for us it is necessary!
For me it is even necessary, that a british Flower class corvette changes its racked DCs three times and the DCT armament eight times...
And that the british have three and the americans (if I remember correctly) have six to eight different DCs with different characteristics...
But for a perfect simulation we need the devtools, because the DCs have different characteristics in different depths which I'm unable to simulate.
Noobicum4Ever
07-21-19, 07:32 AM
Windows 10
Silent Hunter 3 Steam edition + MFM
After installing the ASW mode, Fletcher Destroyer was almost white and most of the british destroyers did not have the main battery.
I deactivated the ASW and the destroyers looked right, then I deactivated the MFM and activated the ASW and the same problem again.
Anyone have any idea?
:wah:
Windows 10
Silent Hunter 3 Steam edition + MFM
After installing the ASW mode, Fletcher Destroyer was almost white and most of the british destroyers did not have the main battery.
I deactivated the ASW and the destroyers looked right, then I deactivated the MFM and activated the ASW and the same problem again.
Anyone have any idea?
:wah:
What is your modlist?
The mod is untested with the steam version...
Noobicum4Ever
07-21-19, 09:08 AM
What is your modlist?
The mod is untested with the steam version...
Only one mod: Merchant Fleet Mod
Only one mod: Merchant Fleet Mod
Then the problem is clear.
For my old mod you need the Ccom-Mod as base, for my new mod the requirement would be WAC...
Noobicum4Ever
07-21-19, 10:31 AM
WAC = War Ace Campaign?
Wich one is the old mod and wich one is the new mod?
Noobicum4Ever
07-23-19, 11:57 PM
OK, another question:
Real ASW Mod v.3 Beta 4 works only with WAC?
I am new, for me ASW, WAC, CCoM, old mod, new mod are terms that I gradually become familiar with.
Do not think that I am a stupid guy, I am learning!
WAC = War Ace Campaign?
Wich one is the old mod and wich one is the new mod?
Yes, WAC is War Ace Campaign.
The old version for Ccom is linked in the first post, the new version for WAC is still in development...
Hello Subsim community,
first of all I would like to inform you that the Real ASW Mod is still under development. Unfortunately, this has only been slow lately, because due to health problems and a job retraining that started, I am only at home at the weekend and can further develop the mod.
However, there are also good news that should shorten the waiting time for the new update. I teamed up with Gap, who is known for his excellent 3D models, which were already to be admired here in the thread. In the next version you will be able to admire accurate 3D models of the ASW weapons that are alone worth the wait! From the division of tasks, Gap will create the models and integrate them into the files, while I continue my previous tasks, work with the files and adapt them to the different ship classes and nations. We are also working on some new features that, if they work and are supported by the engine, will be implemented.
At this point we have finished the implementation of the british Mark VII Depth Charge, but the others are already completely modeled and when the first one works like clockwork the others go fast.
Sadly for now the DC man isnīt animated because we have problems integrating that into the game. He was ready and animated, looks good in S3D, but his faces didnīt show up in game. If someone knows a solution to the problem, we would be pleased with any advice.
Here are some pictures that show the great looking model and our new DC man. Just look at the difference between the Rack (Mod) and the K-Guns (Vanilla)...
https://i.ibb.co/gy5pLQ7/Real-ASW-Mod-1.png (https://ibb.co/VV7ZcbN)
https://i.ibb.co/Sssb3kB/Real-ASW-Mod-2.png (https://ibb.co/xCCW7n6)
https://i.ibb.co/qrQNL6g/Real-ASW-Mod-3.png (https://ibb.co/sVYKp71)
https://i.ibb.co/bQ9sJ38/Real-ASW-Mod-4.png (https://ibb.co/4Kr8df5)
https://i.ibb.co/xS0Lxxw/Real-ASW-Mod-5.png (https://ibb.co/DDyW00m)
https://i.ibb.co/b6nDCGd/Real-ASW-Mod-6.png (https://ibb.co/10xjP42)
https://i.ibb.co/F8SFjrX/Real-ASW-Mod-7.png (https://ibb.co/vL7SKFh)
Ktl_KUrtz
04-18-20, 02:50 PM
Hopefully this will work with NYGM?
:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
KUrtz
Hopefully this will work with NYGM?
:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
KUrtz
It is designed for WAC, for everything else seperate files would be necessary.
Hopefully this will work with NYGM?
:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
KUrtz
Creating a series of patches for making the ASW vessels of each supermod to use the new weapons shouldn't be too difficult once the core files are ready. What might be trickier, is the fine-tuning of dc damage values based on u-boat damage settings which might vary from one super-mod to the other :hmm2:
Ktl_KUrtz
04-18-20, 04:02 PM
Creating a series of patches for making the ASW vessels of each supermod to use the new weapons shouldn't be too difficult once the core files are ready. What might be trickier, is the fine-tuning of dc damage values based on u-boat damage settings which might vary from one super-mod to the other :hmm2:
:Kaleun_Wink:
KUrtz
John Pancoast
04-18-20, 05:23 PM
Hopefully this will work with NYGM?
:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
KUrtz
Kurtz, NYGM already has different depth charges with different characteristics, etc. It's not as detailed as padi's work I don't believe, but if you don't feel up to editing anything.
Sadly for now the DC man isnīt animated because we have problems integrating that into the game. He was ready and animated, looks good in S3D, but his faces didnīt show up in game. If someone knows a solution to the problem, we would be pleased with any advice.
@ padi
When you get time, could you please post here some close-up screenshots showing better the problem?
@ all
If I have understood correctly (padi is the one who carried the tests, so I have only an indirect experience of the problem), during the animation several faces of the mesh-animated DC-man are not visible. As noted by padi, this glitch is only noticeable in game: in S3d everything looks normal.
Interestingly, the same problem can be replicated in stock files regardless of MeshAnimationData settings, by exporting DCman's meshes and re-importing them right away :hmmm:
Some new WIP pictures with added smoke floats on top of the DC rack.
https://i.ibb.co/SRYd6k6/Real-ASW-Mod-8.png (https://ibb.co/86vdmym)
https://i.ibb.co/t3yC70c/Real-ASW-Mod-9.png (https://ibb.co/ZNyTnQK)
https://i.ibb.co/R7stPSG/Real-ASW-Mod-10.png (https://ibb.co/t3vnchw)
@ padi
When you get time, could you please post here some close-up screenshots showing better the problem?
Here they are.
https://i.ibb.co/PC1nvvn/Screenshot-3.png (https://ibb.co/Jkr4ww4)
https://i.ibb.co/MPtPYx5/Screenshot-5.png (https://ibb.co/Yf1fzFT)
Some new WIP pictures with added smoke floats on top of the DC rack.
https://i.ibb.co/SRYd6k6/Real-ASW-Mod-8.png (https://ibb.co/86vdmym)
https://i.ibb.co/t3yC70c/Real-ASW-Mod-9.png (https://ibb.co/ZNyTnQK)
https://i.ibb.co/R7stPSG/Real-ASW-Mod-10.png (https://ibb.co/t3vnchw)
Curiously, the floats look darker in game than they do in Wings3d and in S3d and. I will lighten a bit their diffuse texture and/or their specular map :yep:
Here they are.
https://i.ibb.co/PC1nvvn/Screenshot-3.png (https://ibb.co/Jkr4ww4)
https://i.ibb.co/MPtPYx5/Screenshot-5.png (https://ibb.co/Yf1fzFT)
Thank you Padi! Are the invisible triangles always invisible, or they change during the animation?
Thank you Padi! Are the invisible triangles always invisible, or they change during the animation?
The DC man looks good before the animation starts.
Ktl_KUrtz
04-19-20, 09:36 AM
Kurtz, NYGM already has different depth charges with different characteristics, etc. It's not as detailed as padi's work I don't believe, but if you don't feel up to editing anything.
Hi John,
Thanks for that!
I have to say I am very happy with how the depth charges in NYGM's play!
KUrtz
Kurtz, NYGM already has different depth charges with different characteristics, etc. It's not as detailed as padi's work I don't believe, but if you don't feel up to editing anything.
Hi John,
Thanks for that!
I have to say I am very happy with how the depth charges in NYGM's play!
KUrtz
DISCLAIMER: shameless advertising.
When this mod will be finished, you all will want to play with it :03: :D
Padi has spent a countless number of hours looking for reliable information on historical depth charge loadouts and thrower/rack arrangements for all the main ASW vessels, and on their evolution during the course of WWII. Indeed, his research also includes a good number of the main types of depth charge adopted during the war by the major belligerents together their relative stats (sinking rates, kill radii, etc), but this is only a relatively small part of his comprehensive work!
John Pancoast
04-19-20, 11:11 AM
DISCLAIMER: shameless advertising.
When this mod will be finished, you all will want to play with it :03: :D
Padi has spent a countless number of hours looking for reliable information on historical depth charge loadouts and thrower/rack arrangements for all the main ASW vessels, and on their evolution during the course of WWII. Indeed, his research also includes a good number of the main types of depth charge adopted during the war by the major belligerents together their relative stats (sinking rates, kill radii, etc), but this is only a relatively small part of his comprehensive work!
Definitely keeping an eye on it, sounds great ! Besides, the past great work you two have done makes it on the "must try" list.
John Pancoast
04-19-20, 11:12 AM
Hi John,
Thanks for that!
I have to say I am very happy with how the depth charges in NYGM's play!
KUrtz
If you want to know the details, just look a the various depth charge files in the NYGM library folder.
You'll need S3D to do that.
Definitely keeping an eye on it, sounds great ! Besides, the past great work you two have done makes it on the "must try" list.
Thank you John, Padi's reputation is well deserved. As for me, I am a lazy boy too curious not to start more projects than I can finish, but I promise I will do my best to accomplish all the ideas I have in mind for this mod :D
Jeff-Groves
04-20-20, 03:18 PM
MeshAnimations import with S3D is an unfinished/imperfect function.
One can edit the file with a hex editor to make it work.
But you need to know exactly what you are doing.
Now. Having said that? Here's what you should do for a best bet import.
DO NOT IMPORT the base 3D model.
Select the 3D model with a starting number of say 000.
You'll get a pop up after that.
Import and keep your fingers crossed.
So if you have edited the base object then created animations?
Import the base object. then save the file.
All the animation frames should be other obj files with the same name but _000 through however frames you have.
Like DC_Man_000.obj to DC_Man_011.obj.
Then open your saved file, do a 3D model import selecting the DC_Man_000.obj
Hi Jeff,
thank your for your iputs!
I just replied your e-mail and I sent you all the files you might need to investigate our problem, but please take your time on them, as I understand that mesh animations are not a simple feature.
In a similar way, I think I will need some time for re-reading carefully your tips below and for trying to apply them. For now I have just a couple of questions.
The first time I import the mesh # 00 and I get the pop up window, should I opt for importing that single mesh, or all the meshes composing the animation?
When exporting an animated mesh from S3d, I have noticed that, together with the sequentially numbered meshed, a mesh with no number in its name is created. When I exported the meshes of my own animated character I omitted adding a non-numbered copy of it, thinking that during the import process it was ignored anyway. Is that correct, or should I add to the sequence a model with similar naming?
Thank you John, Padi's reputation is well deserved. As for me, I am a lazy boy too curious not to start more projects than I can finish, but I promise I will do my best to accomplish all the ideas I have in mind for this mod :D
Don't underestimate your contribution, I would have never been able to create the 3D-models and the other visual goodies that hopefully will be included...:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Jeff-Groves
04-21-20, 10:07 AM
@gap
Check your e-mail ASAP please.
:salute:
@gap
Check your e-mail ASAP please.
:salute:
I did and I have already replied :salute:
The first time I import the mesh # 00 and I get the pop up window, should I opt for importing that single mesh, or all the meshes composing the animation?
When exporting an animated mesh from S3d, I have noticed that, together with the sequentially numbered meshed, a mesh with no number in its name is created. When I exported the meshes of my own animated character I omitted adding a non-numbered copy of it, thinking that during the import process it was ignored anyway. Is that correct, or should I add to the sequence a model with similar naming?
A reminder, just in case you missed my questions of yesterday :D
Jeff-Groves
04-21-20, 10:35 AM
I saw the question.
To be totally honest? I had to dig up an old thread I started years ago on animations to refresh my memory on somethings.
:doh:
I'll try following my old advise (along with DivingDuck's) and get back to you soon.
:shucks:
I saw the question.
To be totally honest? I had to dig up an old thread I started years ago on animations to refresh my memory on somethings.
:doh:
I'll try following my old advise (along with DivingDuck's) and get back to you soon.
:shucks:
Okay, if I grasped the point of your post of yesterday, the steps to be followed are:
- get a clean copy of the relevant chunks;
- import only the first animation mesh (the one with the _00 suffix in its name) in the 3D chunk;
- save, close and reload the file;
- import all the animation meshes in the 3D chunk;
- customize MeshAnimationData settings;
- save, cross the fingers and test in game :O:
Let me know if missed some important step or I got something wrong...
Then can we expect this wonderfull mod? What stage are we in ?:Kaleun_Salute:
Then can we expect this wonderfull mod? What stage are we in ?:Kaleun_Salute:
Hi,
for the release date as unsatisfactory as it sounds we could only tell that it is done when it is done.
We are working hard on it, so it could be released, but it will take time and at this point we couldnīt estimate in the slightest, how long it would take us.
Sorry that I couldnīt give you a better answer...
We are now in the stage, that the already modeled items need to be integrated into the game and have to be checked for bugs.
Hi,
for the release date as unsatisfactory as it sounds we could only tell that it is done when it is done.
We are working hard on it, so it could be released, but it will take time and at this point we couldnīt estimate in the slightest, how long it would take us.
Sorry that I couldnīt give you a better answer...
We are now in the stage, that the already modeled items need to be integrated into the game and have to be checked for bugs.
Maybe I can add that a realistic smoke-screen effect is in preparation for use with the smokefloats seen at page #186 in this thread. We have already created a semi-decent effect, but we are still not satisfied with it. Today I got in touch with an old friend who knows very well all the ins and outs of SHIII's particle generators, and I hope he will help us improving it.
In the same time, Jeff is checking what is going on with the dc-man model 'loosing' some of its faces during its animation and I am confident that he will solve the puzzle.
Once these little problems will be solved our work will proceed more steadily. As noted by padi, we have many depth charge models ready for import in game, and we will crate various versions of the new rack with different depth charge types and ammo loadouts that we will "fit" on all the British destroyers that historically used that type of rack.
EDIT:
Under Padi's suggestion, I add that US and other Commonwealth escorts will also get their ASW equipment revised and updated according to historical data available. Moreover, it is our hope that the surface combatants of other WWII Navies (German, French, Italian, Soviet, etc) will follow the same destiny, if we find enough information on them.
Hi,
new day, new news.
Today I'm happy to welcome Kendras to the Mod team.
He is an graphics expert, well known here, and together with Gap they have created some stunning and incredible visual goodies, which will enhance the experience in a great way.
Ktl_KUrtz
05-01-20, 05:32 AM
Hi,
new day, new news.
Today I'm happy to welcome Kendras to the Mod team.
He is a graphics expert, well known here, and together with Gap they have created some stunning and incredible visual goodies, which will enhance the experience greatly.
Hi,
Will this be compatible with NYGM?
KUrtz
Hi,
Will this be compatible with NYGM?
KUrtz
Most likely there will be compatibility files for some modpacks.
Hi,
we're happy about the massive interest regarding our mod and decided to grant the interested community access to our Discord, so you could get in touch with us easier and be informed sooner about new releases and upcoming features.
Also if you want to help us with remarks, suggestions, beta-testing, or in any other way that's also the prefered way to go since it is easier to get the information spread to all developers.
This is the link to the Discord, we hope to come in contact with you soon: https://discord.gg/8XAMaSs
Aquelarrefox
05-05-20, 08:15 PM
a version for nygm could be great, im making a hybridation from nygm and russian gwx that is really interesting and adding this to the frankenstein would be interesting.
Ktl_KUrtz
05-06-20, 08:58 AM
a version for nygm could be great, im making a hybridation from nygm and russian gwx that is really interesting and adding this to the frankenstein would be interesting.
I agree with you.
KUrtz
Hi Community,
here are some sneak peaks from the smoke floats in bad weather conditions.
Stay tuned for more news.
https://i.ibb.co/pjW3cyJ/Smoke-Float-1.png (https://ibb.co/Xxyz18S)
https://i.ibb.co/5nGwRVt/Smoke-Float-2.png (https://ibb.co/nn6tLSZ)
https://i.ibb.co/9tFyfgb/Smoke-Float-3.png (https://ibb.co/ZmncwXB)
https://i.ibb.co/WG2Tbbn/Smoke-Float-4.png (https://ibb.co/Gn5hKK7)
https://i.ibb.co/sFXgzHM/Smoke-Float-5.png (https://ibb.co/gDcrhVB)
https://i.ibb.co/p4SyMyC/Smoke-Float-6.png (https://ibb.co/5sPFSFq)
https://i.ibb.co/zHjK5YG/Smoke-Float-7.png (https://ibb.co/tPkyht8)
John Pancoast
05-09-20, 10:28 AM
:o Wow ! Blocking vision too ?
:o Wow ! Blocking vision too ?
Yes, it does for the player and it will really complicate U-boat attacks. :up:
Unfortunately we couldn't make smoke screens to affect AI visual sensors as well as player's vision though.
The smoke floats will be ignited directly on the decks of the ship classes which historically carried them or, as you can see from Padi's screenshots, they will be dropped as actual floating smoke-generating devices. As the real HC floats they will emit smoke for ca 20 minutes and they will sink after ca. 40 minutes from when they were dumped. Not all the ships of a given class will carry them, but only a few selected vessels based on ship loadout.
John Pancoast
05-09-20, 10:47 AM
Yes, it does for the player and it will really complicate U-boat attacks. :up:
Unfortunately we couldn't make smoke screens to affect AI visual sensors as well as player's vision though.
The smoke floats will be ignited directly on the decks of the ship classes which historically carried them or, as you can see from Padi's screenshots, they will be dropped as actual floating smoke-generating devices. As the real HC floats they will emit smoke for ca 20 minutes and they will sink after ca. 40 minutes from when they were dumped. Not all the ships of a given class will carry them, but only a few selected vessels based on ship loadout.
Outstanding ! Unfortunate about the AI sensors, but blocking player's is more the point I would think.
Outstanding ! Unfortunate about the AI sensors, but blocking player's is more the point I would think.
Yes, indeed!
Another little shortcoming is that we couldn't find a way for triggering the smoke effect as soon as a submerged submarine is detected. For now, the destroyers equipped with smoke canisters will only use them against ships, surfaced submarines and raised periscopes at a maximum range equal to the range of their visual sensor. We could also make them to start laying smoke during depth-charge runs, when they are about on top of the estimated U-boat position, but I am not sure that such a tactic would make any sense.
John Pancoast
05-09-20, 12:05 PM
Yes, indeed!
Another little shortcoming is that we couldn't find a way for triggering the smoke effect as soon as a submerged submarine is detected. For now, the destroyers equipped with smoke canisters will only use them against ships, surfaced submarines and raised periscopes at a maximum range equal to the range of their visual sensor. We could also make them to start laying smoke during depth-charge runs, when they are about on top of the estimated U-boat position, but I am not sure that such a tactic would make any sense.
Even having them is great, anything else is a plus. I wouldn't consider no screen for a submerged sub a problem.
I know smoke was a common surface battle tactic. Any idea how often it was even used against subs ?
Even having them is great, anything else is a plus. I wouldn't consider no screen for a submerged sub a problem.
I know smoke was a common surface battle tactic. Any idea how often it was even used against subs ?
I have not any document close by hand - Padi probably can be more detailed on this respect - but yes, there are a few accounts of smoke screens being used for convoy protection against submarines, though their main employment was indeed in surface engagements and during amphibious operations. Their usage was quite common during both World Wars, but it gradually rarefied with the progress of radar technology in mid-to-late WWII.
John Pancoast
05-09-20, 12:35 PM
I have not any document close by hand - Padi probably can be more detailed on this respect - but yes, there are a few accounts of smoke screens being used for convoy protection against submarines, though their main employment was indeed in surface engagements and during amphibious operations. Their usage was quite common during both World Wars, but it gradually rarefied with the progress of radar technology in mid-to-late WWII.
:up:
:up:
BTW, I think CCoM simulates smoke screens as well, though I don't know how accurately. From my side, I assure you that I, Padi and Kendras have watched tens of pictures and videos and read many documents describing naval smokes and their usage, and we have made any effort to reproduce them as realistically as possible within the game limits. :salute:
Aquelarrefox
05-17-20, 07:51 PM
How to know if a model used in a megamod as nygm or gwx, is viable to use the equipment file in this mod?
How to know if a model used in a megamod as nygm or gwx, is viable to use the equipment file in this mod?
What do you mean?
Aquelarrefox
05-24-20, 11:01 PM
What do you mean?
It's only need to check is the number of nodes in equipment is the same that in your files or what other thing should be checked?
It's only need to check is the number of nodes in equipment is the same that in your files or what other thing should be checked?
Sorry that I didnīt answer earlier, the loss of contact to Gap hurted a lot and let to me not visiting Subsim for a while...
You first need to check if the class is included in both mods and the files are named identical.
Then you should check the number of "W" nodes, e.g. W01, W02, etc...
Third check if the nodes have the same type of weapon, e.g. Depth Charge rack, Depth Charge thrower or Hedgehog...
If all of them are identical the mod should work with the ship.
Hi guys,
there are nice news regarding the mod, which you could find on the Mods Discord.
When the new version is ready (which I assume to be the case in the next few weeks as I could at the moment only work on it on weekends) it would of course be published here also.
Regardless Im still looking for 3D creators and beta testers to improve the speed and quality of development.
Greetings
Anvar1061
07-23-21, 08:09 AM
I'm ready to test it on my GWR
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/Kaleun_Salute-1.gif
Hi Community,
Iīm happy to finally be able to release the Release Candidate for the Version 4.0 here.
It contains all the british ships (except the Kingfisher and Vosper class) as the Kingfisher crashes every time I load it with or without the mod (most likely WAC problem) and for the Vosper new models for the DC chutes need to be created.
The other nations like US, France, Sowjets or Italians will follow, as well as the Poles and Canadians if I find useful information.
Everything else could be found in the Readme.
If you find any bugs, have suggestions for features or something else feel free to get in contact with us on the corresponding channels.
You could find the RC here:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/3jcaynnu7eu2ing/Real_ASW_Mod_RC4.0.7z/file
If no Bugs are found I will release it as stable in one week.
If you want to get in contact with the developers simply head over to the discord, as that is the place where I could reply the fastest.
You find it here: https://discord.gg/Yg5ZE25
Finally here are some pictures of the mod in action on the most heavily armed ASW-ship featured so far, the Havant-class.
https://s20.directupload.net/images/210819/bon59537.png (https://www.directupload.net)
https://s20.directupload.net/images/210819/zm6mxe3z.png (https://www.directupload.net)
https://s20.directupload.net/images/210819/moe2cmrk.png (https://www.directupload.net)
https://s20.directupload.net/images/210819/fig7cvhm.png (https://www.directupload.net)
John Pancoast
08-19-21, 08:21 AM
Well done, thanks !
Ktl_KUrtz
08-19-21, 09:27 AM
:Kaleun_Cheers:
KUrtz
Silent Hunter III is Magnificent because of people like you:Kaleun_Wink::Kaleun_Applaud:
Anvar1061
08-19-21, 12:54 PM
@padi
Watch Discord
If you decide to use WAC ships, then you must put all the files. Otherwise they are useless in other mods where other models are.
https://sun9-15.userapi.com/impg/rkBorCrShdfhDVhoKXXDDEsKSloUwzMAgoTdnw/AENyfVe_TSc.jpg?size=1024x768&quality=96&sign=fc00869d379464d242337cb6ca51fe31&type=album
Hi, is this a driveable mod witht he ships or just ai?
Well done, thanks !
Thanks, Iīm happy that you like it:)
Silent Hunter III is Magnificent because of people like you:Kaleun_Wink::Kaleun_Applaud:
Thanks, stay tuned for the other stuff that will be included in future updates...
I especially look forward to the US ASW weapons and especially the fast sinker Mark 9 DC:D
@padi
Watch Discord
If you decide to use WAC ships, then you must put all the files. Otherwise they are useless in other mods where other models are.
https://sun9-15.userapi.com/impg/rkBorCrShdfhDVhoKXXDDEsKSloUwzMAgoTdnw/AENyfVe_TSc.jpg?size=1024x768&quality=96&sign=fc00869d379464d242337cb6ca51fe31&type=album
No, I will only include the files that I changed, but in the meantime I explained that to him via DM.
For the others the explanation is following so that everyone understands my motives:
I donīt want anyone to be offended for copyright purposes so I purposefully only include what I modified and anyone willing to use it needs to get the remaining files by downloading WAC.
I need to make compatibility files for each big mod regardless because I need to modify each mods Campaign files at some point in the development to have every ship with its correct loadout depending on the nationality which is impossible to do in any other way that I know about.
I experienced that especially the graphically very impressive WAC is reaching the top of the possible RAM usage so I need to hold the additionally added graphics to a minimum to keep it stable.
Hi, is this a driveable mod witht he ships or just ai?
No, this is an AI mod.
I rework the entire ASW combat in the game so that it becomes as realistic as possible in SH3 and makes your life hell.
The ships themselves stay the same as before, I only improved the realism by eliminating obvious errors that I stumble on and add the new ASW weapons to the ships.
Just try it out yourself to find out if you enjoy it.
And there it is.
No bugs were found so the RC version could be released as the version 4.0.
The things suggested by Anvar are optimisations within the files that make it easier while editing, I will implement these in the following release.
Itīs a big day for me, nearly six years after the release of my first mod version on October 22nd, 2015.
Since then I learned so much about this game, got way better at modding and now Iīm very proud of the product, I hope you guys will enjoy it while I will expand it in the future.
Here you could find it:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/11wf4luri07rjre/Real_ASW_Mod_4.0.7z/file
Have fun:Kaleun_Salute:
Anvar1061
08-29-21, 07:38 AM
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/Kaleun_Cheers-1.gif
John Pancoast
08-29-21, 08:45 AM
:Kaleun_Cheers: Thanks for your efforts of all your work and mods !
FUBAR295
08-29-21, 09:09 AM
Thanks, Padi!!!
Nice add on for WAC.
Anvar1061
09-30-21, 12:55 PM
No bugs were found so the RC version could be released as the version 4.0.
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/Kaleun_Wink.gif
NCO_Flower.eqp;==Line:** "19421131" Date mismatch (or DateRange)==
NDD_HuntI.eqp;==Line:** "19421131" Date mismatch (or DateRange)==
NDD_HuntII.eqp;==Line:** "19421131" Date mismatch (or DateRange)==
NDD_HuntIII.eqp;==Line:** "19421131" Date mismatch (or DateRange)==
NTRW_.eqp;=="Eqp:6=7=8=9"
Commander Wallace
07-21-23, 07:26 AM
Thanks Padi for your efforts and work. :Kaleun_Applaud: :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Your efforts and the work of others has keep Silent hunter as viable as it it is.
fitzcarraldo
07-21-23, 09:57 AM
Is this mod compatible with OneAlex GWX and/or Fifi NYGM version?
It seems it is only for WAC.
Many thanks.
Fitzcarraldo :Kaleun_Salute:
FUBAR295
07-21-23, 10:51 AM
It is only meant for WAC.
From the README :
When it is completed for WAC I will adapt it for other big mods.
Since I have not seen any other updates, for now it is just for WAC.
In looking at the file, it will not work as is in NYGM, or GWX without issues.
Good hunting,
FUBAR295
fitzcarraldo
07-21-23, 12:39 PM
It is only meant for WAC.
From the README :
When it is completed for WAC I will adapt it for other big mods.
Since I have not seen any other updates, for now it is just for WAC.
In looking at the file, it will not work as is in NYGM, or GWX without issues.
Good hunting,
FUBAR295
Many thanks for the answer!
Fitzcarraldo :salute:
Is this mod compatible with OneAlex GWX and/or Fifi NYGM version?
It seems it is only for WAC.
Many thanks.
Fitzcarraldo :Kaleun_Salute:
Sorry that I didnīt reply sooner.
It is only for WAC, but maybe it works with other mods, but you need to try that by yourself.
But Fubar gladly answered that already:)
Mister_M
01-02-24, 08:48 AM
Realism and ASW and SHIII have been neglected the Vanilla Depth Charges a Disaster. Thanks to The_Frog and His Series of Ships we have some help in that arena with his Throwers and Depth Charges. The RN/RCN Mark IV DCT ( depth charge throwers ) Had Expendable Arbor Stands. RN/RCN Mark V DCT were improved ( known as DC_thrower_2 in UK_Guns.dat ) based on the Lend Lease USN K-Guns Design the Arbor and Stand Extend at Launch and Automatically Retract to the Load/Fire Position Both Operated like a potato gun. the lifting charge being War Alcohol ( Not for Sailors Use ) .
Example in game of The_Frogs ( Modified by me ) Mark IV DCT ( Known as DC_thrower_1 in UK_Guns.dat ) Throwing its stand and a Mark VII Depth Charge, as modified with the arbor/stand from the model and a cylinder attached, textured in dark colors to identify as Mark VII for DCT ( Mark VII Heavy Forbidden from use on DCT Mark IV ): ( a Mod within a Mod of My to be released in 2017, New Platinum Edition Flower Class Corvette "The Cruel Sea" Mod.
http://i.imgur.com/JuRay1I.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GKiIxMM.jpg
Here is a RN/RCN Mark II ( Tall ) DC Track/Rail Late Variant For Flower Class Corvettes , His Majesty's Trawlers, etc. ( 3 Versions made 1:without internal store, no smoke emission eqp. External Loads on Deck Rails. 2: with smoke emission eqp. 3: as pictured double rowed with internal stores, and smoke eqp.
All versions have DC Mark VIIs with Expendable Arbor Stand on RN/RCN Chocks.
http://i.imgur.com/sYyuMFg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/v8ebZHG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JGc7ovr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N327Jjy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZYiLgnJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UiB2dbi.jpg
In closing I Like this thread as ASW often ruins a U-Boats Day! I'm Working on an all new Hedgehog and Rounds for this Mod. Also Planned a Foxer Decoy Allied Counter Measures to Type IV and V Acoustic Homing Torpedoes.
So, this beautiful model of the Flower-class corvette has never been released? :cry:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.