Destroyers Discussion (getting rid of pin point drops)

[CB..]

Guys, regarding the idea that some people have uber DD's and never experience the opposite and other people have totally stupid DD behavior
and rarely run up against truly superior/elite DD opposition.
For just a moment consider this. There were four versions of the game introduced EMEA dvd, EMEA download, US dvd, US download. (also patches for each of those versions)I live in the US but I received an EMEA dvd disc in my pre-ordered shipment. The guy 60 miles away received a US dvd-why? Who is to say that perhaps just perhaps a minor change was made to the game either intentionally or in error which caused the game to play differently from one version to another, or maybe just one small aspect of the game to play out differently.
In all the back and forth testing going on here one person edits a file and the game reacts but another person edits that exact same file and experiences something totally opposite. All of you are comparing files and ideas and brainstorming until your hair starts smoking but no one has yet to ask "which version of the game do you have?".
Anyway, being the cynical, devious type that I am this is just the way I think. Absolutely no intention of pointing fingers here just another "what if" scenario. The devs knew what kind of hardcore simmers & realism fanatics some of us are, they knew exactly what kind of intended audience they were playing to. Is this another Easter Egg that being opened 9 mos later?
As my dad would say Food for Thought.

i agree i reckon the Devs were having a little bit of a laugh (as a small revenge for getting them to re write the campaign engine for us)

your right be interesting to check the game types every ones using to see what's what just in case

i have the european release DVD-- came with useless DD's as stock

[caspofungin]

sorry, been away from the thread for a few days -- work stuff

anyway, i feel that further extensive testing of sensitivity in sim.cfg is probably a waste of time. Why? I've run many, many tests w/ various values in both a set-up test mission and in campaign -- and noticed no significant difference in detection ranges w/ any sensor -- asdic or hydrophones.

detection time has an effect -- reducing it to 0 increases the range you're detected at -- but not beyond a certain maximum. decreasing ambient noise increases the range you're heard at -- but not beyond a certain maximum. decreasing wave effect also increases the range you're heard at -- but not beyond a certain maximum.

what determines that maximum range? i don't know. i've played w/ the ai_sensors setting, like cb, setting them up as high as 40000m, with no appreciable difference.

is there another file or setting somewhere that trumps or has a significant effect on the values in sim.cfg or ai_sensors? most likely. finding it is the issue.

i agree w/ cb's comment that any pinp[oint drop by escorts is down to bad luck on my side -- missing the point at which to turn for various reasons, or not moving quickly enough once i'm in the asdic dead zone (that i've implemented by changing beam geometry rather than the min range -- gives a larger dead-zone the deeper you are).

my personal feeling is that dumb dd's has as much to do w/ poor sensor implementation as anything else. it would be interesting to hear what rangs people are getting picked up on hydrophones at or pinged by asdic. no matter what i do, the max i can get pinged at is about 1400-1800m -- much less than historical figures. hydrophone effect -- no more than 5000m, can't remember exact figure. refer to my earlier post for historical comparisons.

anyway, i think once we get greater range for escort sensor detection, the escorts would present more of a challenge w/out the playkilling uberness that we get by removing sin.cfg. any comments?

[caspofungin]

also, wrt to the prev posts about escorts having "composite sensors" since they only have 1 asdic node -- they also have nodes (c and d) for radio direction finding and radar warning receivers -- could we place a second asdic into those nodes? similar to placing searchlights into the aircraft weapon nodes to represent leigh lights?

also, giving dc's the "noisemaker effect" of decoys -- mentioned previously, suggest greater amplitude but shorter duration -- but does anyone have an idea how to actually go about doing that?

[Redwine]

I am not sure but may be Marhkimov was right, i remove all back-up files from the file folder, and now changes i do works. :huh:

With little changes in the beam angles i can now manage those Buckley and Evarts from Ubber to stupid. :88)

I am disconcerted :88) :o :huh:

Changes i made :

Active

Beam wide 30* > 15*L > 15*R
Beam vertical 90* to 100*
MinRange 300

Pasive

Beam wide 240* > 120*L > 120*R
Beam vertical 90* to 110*
Min Range 300

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.0 ;[>=0]

[Sonar]
Detection time=20 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]

Now they works as early DDs :rock:



I was using very more reduced values before as :

a narrow wide active angle of only 3*
and min range of 500m
Sensivity 0.01
Lost time = 1
Detection time = 60


and no way, they still Ubber DDs.

Now, after remove the renamed back-up files, a obtain a complete change in behavior ............ i cant believe. :88)

Please do not forget this, remove back-up files from files folders.

[CB..]

anyway, i think once we get greater range for escort sensor detection, the escorts would present more of a challenge w/out the playkilling uberness that we get by removing sin.cfg. any comments?
welcome back Caspofugin :up:

what i'm doing is only adding some of entrys to the sim.cfg and leaving others out-- to balance the extreme uber ness that comes from having no hydrophone netrys in the cfg

it seems to be working well or at least better and more reliably than anything else i've tried--luckily it allso seems to give good gameplay at the same time--not being overly predictable etc

[CB..]

I am not sure but may be Marhkimov was right, i remove all back-up files from the file folder, and now changes i do works. :huh:

With little changes in the beam angles i can now manage those Buckley and Evarts from Ubber to stupid. :88)

I am disconcerted :88) :o :huh:

.

so am i!! that is weird -- will remove the back ups to be safe from now on

[Ducimus]

I also set the main Hydrophone setting to 30 km and then tripled all passives.

How do triple the passives? What passives? Im guessing theres 3 forms of passive sonars? What are they called in the tweaker program?




what i found was i could increase the max range of the hydrophones
to any amount what so-ever

the most powerfull method of control hydrophone range is via the noise and waves factor

the noise factor is a consitent figure -- the waves factor obviuosly changes according to the weather-- flat calm gives longer effective hydrophone ranges than stormy etc--

removing the noise and waves factor gives the longest hydrophone range of all (from Col's discovery)

try this

set the noise and waves factor to zero



Ill try this when i get home. Question though, what exactly do thhe wave and noise factor's do? My only guess is their enviormental dampeners that shorten the range... i suppose my question really is, what do values of say.. 0.5 or 1.0 do to them?


As for uber DD's.. for me DD accuracy isnt an issue, the issue is them noticing me in the first place. Even a half assed effort would be an improvement.

Without attempting to address the DD's in any way, i think in all the time ive played SH3, NOT ONCE HAVE I BEEN IN A DEPTH CHARGE ATTACK FROM A DD! Well, ok.. once, but only cause he caught me on the surface... and only cause i CHOOSE on purpose to dive at the last possible minute. (my conning tower barely cleared his keel, he tried to ram)

Seriously if the default hydrophone range is only 6000 (meters?), combined with wave/noise modifiers, the DD's stock, virtually have no chance to detect me - and i usualy go to silent running WELL before 6000 meters. That just aint fun. But if it takes replacing every DD in the campaign file with level 4's so they'll notice me.. so be it. I'd rather deal with uber DD's then a repititous excercise in convoy killing that has virutally no threat of danger at all.

[gouldjg]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I think its all going mad.

I understand your frustration.

On the topic of pin point. To be very honest here, I can also usually avoid 90% of the time when I am in the patient mood. My main motive about the uber DD pin point is simply to get a better damage model. I was trying to get DC close, but not too close :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:.

I know I could cheat this by just adding murky water and not using external view. I could then simply set the DC to be less efficient. Problem is solved. If I do not know where the DC exactly landed then who cares as long as the damage is progressive.


Yes I do also feel that the waves and noise factors seem to be major players in this Hydrophone issue.

I think the hydrophone is one feature that definetly needs to be changed for the benefit of all players. I am not so sure on the subject of actives though. They seem to work ok as far as range is concerned for me. But I am still exploring possibilities.

I remember whining about the 90 degree bearing nerf to 60 being a tad too extreme.

I personally aggree with most of what you are saying but at the same time, I am digging into other possibles here. The what ifs and what abouts still need to be found, used and abused IMHO.

If there is one thing I have learned from nerfing cfg files. You can sometimes add lines to them and they sometimes work.

Examples are when I add things to the zones.cfg

I have also added lines to crew fatigue models and they did in fact work to some degree's.

I say we are beginning to get some sort of common theory going here.

1. The crew ratings need to be dispenced of for the time being.

2. The hydrostations for ai is in need of the most fixing.

3. It is not the fact that your game is different to everyone elses, it is just the fact that you seem to have noticed this more than some may care to admit to. I bet if everyone suddenly goes checking the DD hydrophone detections, they will all notice they are dumb. Human Factors and oversight here.

God I feel like I am in a Sherlock Holmes case :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Redwine]

I also set the main Hydrophone setting to 30 km and then tripled all passives.

How do triple the passives? What passives? Im guessing theres 3 forms of passive sonars? What are they called in the tweaker program?


It is easy, pasives are all those which have :

Min Bearing = 0
Max Bearing = 135



Acctives are those with :

Min Bearing = 0
Max Bearing = 90 ( or 60 if you use Jungsman mod)



Radar are those with :

Min Bearing = 0
Max Bearing = 180

:up:

[Col7777]

OK if we rename the sim.cfg so the game doesn't read it, the game must look at the SH3Sim(clut) file for the information, this information as we have found out is UBER.
So again remember if we rename the SH3Sim(clut) and put back the Sim.cfg the DD's are stupid.

So The SH3Sim is the UBER file and the Sim.cfg calms it down.

If we edit all the lines out using the ; before the line in the Sim.cfg then one by one add them and see what happens, yes this is a long job but bit by bit we will find what does what and by how much to increase or decrease the numbers.

It needs to be the same mission every time, CB and I used to do this in SH2, we sometimes drew a blank but other times turned up a gem.

We need to have and agree and a mission to test so to make it easy for the rest of us to try the findings.

This is just an idea, it may seem a long process but in the end it might be the shortest method, what are your thoughts?

[gouldjg]

I also set the main Hydrophone setting to 30 km and then tripled all passives.

How do triple the passives? What passives? Im guessing theres 3 forms of passive sonars? What are they called in the tweaker program?




what i found was i could increase the max range of the hydrophones
to any amount what so-ever

the most powerfull method of control hydrophone range is via the noise and waves factor

the noise factor is a consitent figure -- the waves factor obviuosly changes according to the weather-- flat calm gives longer effective hydrophone ranges than stormy etc--

removing the noise and waves factor gives the longest hydrophone range of all (from Col's discovery)

try this

set the noise and waves factor to zero



Ill try this when i get home. Question though, what exactly do thhe wave and noise factor's do? My only guess is their enviormental dampeners that shorten the range... i suppose my question really is, what do values of say.. 0.5 or 1.0 do to them?


As for uber DD's.. for me DD accuracy isnt an issue, the issue is them noticing me in the first place. Even a half assed effort would be an improvement.

Without attempting to address the DD's in any way, i think in all the time ive played SH3, NOT ONCE HAVE I BEEN IN A DEPTH CHARGE ATTACK FROM A DD! Well, ok.. once, but only cause he caught me on the surface... and only cause i CHOOSE on purpose to dive at the last possible minute. (my conning tower barely cleared his keel, he tried to ram)

Seriously if the default hydrophone range is only 6000 (meters?), combined with wave/noise modifiers, the DD's stock, virtually have no chance to detect me - and i usualy go to silent running WELL before 6000 meters. That just aint fun. But if it takes replacing every DD in the campaign file with level 4's so they'll notice me.. so be it. I'd rather deal with uber DD's then a repititous excercise in convoy killing that has virutally no threat of danger at all.

Hi again

You are now a initiated Modder cos you also see the problem here as did CB and others.

The waves and Noise IMHO are so badly nerfing the ranges of the Hydrophones that they suck.

I personally believe that the crew ratings also effect the sensitivity which further makes these suck. This is speculation mind you.

If you use TT's tool and open up the AI_sensors dat these are all files relating to the passives.

1. AI_Hydrophone
2. QGAP plus the other ones that end in P
3.Type144P plus the other ones that end in P

You will now suss that the ones that end in A are the actives.

The key now is to get the results you want.

I tell you guys, I think we are getting places here.

[Col7777]

Gouldjg,

Forgive my ignorance, but if for example a DD has a crew rating of say 2, will he be more stupid than one with a rating of 4?

[gouldjg]

OK if we rename the sim.cfg so the game doesn't read it, the game must look at the SH3Sim(clut) file for the information, this information as we have found out is UBER.
So again remember if we rename the SH3Sim(clut) and put back the Sim.cfg the DD's are stupid.

So The SH3Sim is the UBER file and the Sim.cfg calms it down.

If we edit all the lines out using the ; before the line in the Sim.cfg then one by one add them and see what happens, yes this is a long job but bit by bit we will find what does what and by how much to increase or decrease the numbers.

It needs to be the same mission every time, CB and I used to do this in SH2, we sometimes drew a blank but other times turned up a gem.

We need to have and agree and a mission to test so to make it easy for the rest of us to try the findings.

This is just an idea, it may seem a long process but in the end it might be the shortest method, what are your thoughts?


Fully agree

That was also my intention. Let us test and exploit what exactly can be done here.

I say we all start with Hydrophones, Mission should start with Happy times, and nerfs should start with Waves and noise.

What say all thee?

[Marhkimov]

Forgive my ignorance, but if for example a DD has a crew rating of say 2, will he be more stupid than one with a rating of 4?

From my experience, if a DD (with a 4 rating) catches you on the surface, he will be deadly accurate with his deckguns. Then as the ratings generally go down, the slower and less accurate his deckguns will be.

But regarding a DD's other abilities (to loacate and hunt for a submerged u-boat), Gouldgj and company know much more than I do...

[CB..]

We need to have and agree and a mission to test so to make it easy for the rest of us to try the findings.

This is just an idea, it may seem a long process but in the end it might be the shortest method, what are your thoughts?

i 'm not convinced using the same mission each time is going to yeild the most reliable results with this one sadly Col--
it's ok for some factors but not for the long term success of the work--you have to re-adjust all the settings the first time you come across the same situation in a heavy swell for example--
(plus it drives you barmy after a while :cry: )
but as long as we keep trying things sooner or later we'll hit gold--
same as SH2-- there's allways ome nugget waiting to be discovered

if we could actually find a file with the default entrys in and it was editable we could use both that file and the sim.cfg to great effect-- where's the clut file Col? i'll have a look at it--


all good stuff--

as Gouldjg said the hydrophones are the key to the over-all DD behaviuor-
( :up: had to be really)

sonar is the key to the more specific DD behaviuor--

:up: again has to be :yep: )

im going to persist in testing in a campaign style mission to see how any changes play out in the various conditions i come across in full randomisation of the campaign engine-- i kept finding what worked well in calm weather was useles in heavy seas etc etc--

mind you the sim.cfg partial hydrophone edits--(entrys removed entriely for the uber effet - some left in adjusted to compensate etc)
seems to be perfectly ok in all weather conditions so far-- :up:

[Col7777]

That's what I thought, I just wanted to make sure, thanks matey.

[Col7777]

HI CB,

That clut file is on the first section before you go in to the DATA,
The bit where the SH3.exe is located.

Perhaps you are right about the testing, as we now going in and out drives you bonkers, I've done a few tests then go on flight sim for a bit to get my head straight. :)

[Ducimus]

THanks for the tips. Passive sonar's have a

>>Max Bearing = 135
>> QGAP plus the other ones that end in P
>>Type144P plus the other ones that end in P

I'll try trippeling those when i get home.

As for crew rating, one could reasonably assume it has lot to do with accuracy, and (heres my conjecture), alertness. Personnaly i think escorts with a crew rating of 1 or 2 are so worthless, they may as well not even exist. ANything pre 1943 is an utter bore to me. Starting at 43 is when things get intrestng, and i *think* thats when you'll see more crew ratings of 3.

To buck that trend however, ONCE in 1941, i think i ran into an uber DD. Sonar conditions must have been perfect. Daylight, glassy calm seas, shallow waters (60 - 80 meters) and i was sneaking into scapa. You know, the bay there before the inlet into scapa proper? I blatantly reloaded the game several times there to observe his behavior (stock campaign). Only being at dead stopped prevented him detecting me- of coruse he was passing CLOSE, not a whole lot of room or time to manuever.

[gouldjg]

Gouldjg,

Forgive my ignorance, but if for example a DD has a crew rating of say 2, will he be more stupid than one with a rating of 4?

I personally think the crew rating that goes up to 4 is the best.

I also think that crew rating add xtra nerfs to rnages, waves, noise etc etc. Otherwise why have crew ratings ??????????. I do not notice any heroics or manouvers between crew rating so am pretty certain that crew ratings affect sensors in some way much like in the air cfg.

I am almost putting my money on the fact that crew ratings effect the sensitivity but that is a guess though it would answer to a lot.

I feel that we should split this between the group.

One has all crew rating removed,

One has all crew set to 4

One has all crew set to 0 or 1. Bye the way, their is a crew rating of zero in the rnd file.

If we then stick to using the same CFG nerfs but different crew ratings, we may get to disvover the differences.

All in all it would have to be a very diciplined excersise.


I do not mind losing crew and also do not mind having same usual DD routine as long as they detect me when they should. The Devs never had time to fully test the impact IMHO or they just added crew ratings to try and please as many players as possible.

[Ducimus]

Well, when i get home tonight im going to
1.) tripple my passives.
2.) zero out the hydrophone noise level in the sim.cfg file.

Then ill start a campign in 42 with improved convoys. I replaced all instances of crew ratings 1 and 2 with 3. Im pretty sure all the crew ratings of 4 wont appear in that campign until 43 or 44, so starting at 42 im thinking ill see crewrating 3 escorts accross the board.

Ill let ya all know how it goes, providing the wife leaves me alone.

Last two weeks, "what ya doing in there hon?!"

me, "im tweaking!"

[CB..]

One has all crew rating removed,

.

if you read back a way i allready work on that one :up: --- with stock AI_sensors.dat and the crewrating entirely removed --the DD's are best described by the phrase

moderately effective

with the strange side effect that the DD's stopped using their active sonar--no pinging--they did drop DC's tho (how i've no idea )

once i tried editing the sensor dat again they immediately became useless again even tho i had improved their sensors---what that meant i couldn't tell-

there IS a crewrating of 0 :up:


what's discipline? :huh: i don't do discipline :-j

[gouldjg]

So CB

I am on track now, :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Did you delete or use the ;key.

Did you change all crew to Crewrating=0?

I am worried about the non ping you describe so want to make sure I am not going to flog a dead horse here.

What are your thoughts on the Crewrating=0?

I should have looked at what ships and times had this setting before deleting it :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

1, 2, 3, 4, seem to represented by what is stated in the multiplayer but no option for a fith setting. I will just boot up a multiplayer game and see how many choices of ai crew we are given to be sure there is not 5.

Are you still leaving all crew ratings out?

what's discipline? i don't do discipline

By heck man, your British, stiff upper lip and all. I don't do it either but it sounded good :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .

Bedtime now, will report in tommorow afternoon.

[CB..]

So CB

I am on track now, :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Did you delete or use the ;key.

Did you change all crew to Crewrating=0?

I am worried about the non ping you describe so want to make sure I am not going to flog a dead horse here.

What are your thoughts on the Crewrating=0?


.

i dunno wether right "track" is the right word but probably yes!!

i used the ; key-- there was a solid difference after this edit so i presumed it was doing what it normally does--

i don't know why the DD's stopped using the active--but it was intrigueing--


i didn't try changing all the crewratings to zero (they were bad enough to start with remember!) i've now restored all the crewratings to test Col's mod

can't say there's much to be said about the crewrating=0 option but never dismiss anything out of hand or assume that you know what's going on with any certainty-iceburgs and most merchants use this rating as stock--which brings me to the discipline thing


what i mean is simply this--the only way to test these results is in open gameplay -- so that in every sort of weather and against every sort of opposition some thing worthy of the title "gameplay" occurs

that's all there is to it-- i can fine tune things in set scenarios for ever and find the whole things useless in full and normal campaign gameplay---it has it's place but only as a very minor part of the testing process

i learn't this lesson the hard way making exactly the same sort of mod we're aiming at here --for SH2 ((DES5 etc was a full sensor unit equipment mod)) and not in any way intended to be realistic-- yet most folks said it was very realistic indeed- because IMO i tested tweaked it and just as importantly played it to check over and over and over again that it was working well in open and fully randomised campaign gameplay--took about a year -- here's discipline for you--for every change i made to it i started and played a full campaign thru to see how it worked---untill i simply ran out of patience -then released it- as a work in progress- a gameplay mod- all realism being implied rather than specific

if the results need to work in the open normal campaign then the only way to effectively test is in open normal campaign gameplay--- it's not overly hard to do either in SH3-- no one listens to poor Zaphros-- no no--

[Ducimus]

In the ultimate display of my own ignorance, i have a stupid question.

Is it possible that the hydrophone section (not the indivdual numbered passives assigned to escorts) in the ai_sensor.dat has more to do with the hydrophone in your own boat? My logic is, a hydrophone crewman, is infact an AI unto himself, is it not? Or is this KNOWN to be defined elsewhere?
Your hydrophone can listen fairly far away, but your operator only reports things when they're fairly close.

Forgive the ignorance im bored and still muddling thorugh this.

[CB..]

In the ultimate display of my own ignorance, i have a stupid question.

Is it possible that the hydrophone section (not the indivdual numbered passives assigned to escorts) in the ai_sensor.dat has more to do with the hydrophone in your own boat? My logic is, a hydrophone crewman, is infact an AI unto himself, is it not? Or is this KNOWN to be defined elsewhere?
Your hydrophone can listen fairly far away, but your operator only reports things when they're fairly close.

Forgive the ignorance im bored and still muddling thorugh this.

I think that the uboat ai stuff is stored in the sensors.dat - the other AI stuff for the allied vessels etc seems to be the AI_sensors.dat--

but i don't think we've gotten to the bottom of this yet so who knows--
i'm confused by the fact there's an entry for AI_hydrophones AND an entrys for every type of hydrophone etc---

[Ducimus]

i'm confused by the fact there's an entry for AI_hydrophones AND an entrys for every type of hydrophone etc---

That is what prompted my question. Seems redundant to have both, and from what i gather from this thread, editing the individual entries seem have better results?

[CB..]

i'm confused by the fact there's an entry for AI_hydrophones AND an entrys for every type of hydrophone etc---

That is what prompted my question. Seems redundant to have both, and from what i gather from this thread, editing the individual entries seem have better results?

i don't know to be honest--for me neither has any profound effect--just facts and figures in a file -- nothing much changes in the game :cry:

[Ducimus]

BLech, ill change both. If i notice my sonar is has some marked improvment, then ill know :P The key is DD detecting subs and i think, all considered, its close to being cracked.

If i get results, with both edited, ill try reverting the hydrophone settings and see if i get dumb escorts again.


An idea just hit me. Maybe we should all use the same mission file? Standardized testing. Just a approach the convoy scenario? Im no wiz with the editor, otherwise id make one. ( If anyone does make one, post it so we can use it. )

[caspofungin]

i don't think AI_hydrophones link gets used.

Reasons
1. check the sens file for enemy ships. theres a link to AI_visual for the visual node, but then every other sensor has a link to the named sensor in AI_sensors eg linkname type 144p

2. changing the ai_hydrophones values -- other than noise level and detection time as above -- has no effect at all -- at least, not one that i've detected.

i also feel we're repeating some of the early work done by cb, redwine, and self. not that there's anything wrong w/ it -- the more info we have, the better, and it would be nice to actually confirm things. but i agree w/ gouldj -- we need to all test on a standardized mission (there's links earlier in the thread to mine and someone elses, or we should agree on 1 of the single missions), and tweaking 1 variable at a time. it's no good to change 2 or 3 things, then report that there's changes. we need to figure out which *1* thing, which single variable, does what. once we do that, we can start changing weather conditions etc.

re which mission to use -- i think we should make a mission w/ a single escort, elite crew (or no crew rating), calm weather, set time. that way, there's less confounding variables.

also, when reporting results, we need to give lots of info -- range detected on hydrophones, range pinging started are probably most important.

sorry if it seems that i'm ranting or trying to be bossy -- i just don't want you guys to spend a lot of time and effort doing the same stuff that was done a while ago. forgive me if i've misinterpreted peoples' intentions.

[caspofungin]

http://rapidshare.de/files/8027236/sonar_tweak-test.rar.html

standard mission, single escort, calm weather, daylight start, you start on surface. ai_sensors included w/ tweaked sensor ranges and values to be more in tune w/ history (but feel free to not use that bit). sim.cfg has detection times of 0 -- in repeated testing, i've found this greatly reduces the variability in detection ranges. eg try for yourself -- run the test multiple times, and the range you're spotted at changes greatly. detection time 0, and things are a little more consistent.

as my mantra goes -- the less variables, the better.

[Ducimus]

http://rapidshare.de/files/8027236/sonar_tweak-test.rar.html

standard mission, single escort, calm weather, daylight start, you start on surface. ai_sensors included w/ tweaked sensor ranges and values to be more in tune w/ history (but feel free to not use that bit). sim.cfg has detection times of 0 -- in repeated testing, i've found this greatly reduces the variability in detection ranges. eg try for yourself -- run the test multiple times, and the range you're spotted at changes greatly. detection time 0, and things are a little more consistent.

as my mantra goes -- the less variables, the better.

Ill try testing some of the adjustments ive been making with that mission later tonight hopefully, thanks.

1.) standardized test will hopefully give us a controlled testing enviorment.

2.) speeds up testing. Running a patrol takes time. Sooner this gets hashed out the sooner we can start enjoying the game.


Although if you could come up with a 2nd version that has say, 3 or 4 escorts to go along with the single escort mission, that would help greatly.

Specficially id like to test single DD detection, and then also under a "normal "convoy situation.

EDIT:
BTW whats the crew rating? 3, 4, or is it remarked out? Id like to experiment with that. In specfic, a crew rating of 4 vs a remarked out crew rating.

[Reece]

Thought I might throw in my 2 cents, I generally find that dd's don't detect me unless I surface or something! however once they have detected me they hound me endlessly, dropping dc's with pinpoint accuracy, finally after 30mins or more I give up!! because they sure don't. :-?
This is in a carreer, I don't play the single missions, however I do play LAN coop game and even on the easiest settings (1939) they are the same - uber! if anything 1943 gameplay is much easier & escaping dd's easier :dead:
Keep up the good work modders & don't give in - please! :lol:

[Ducimus]

Posting this now while its still fresh in my mind:

Using this mission:
http://rapidshare.de/files/8027236/sonar_tweak-test.rar.html

I edited the starting point back so theres like 11K meters distance between the DD and the player sub to give me time to dive.


Parameters of my testing so far:

Sim.cfg:
Hydrophone]
Detection time=0.0 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.0 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=0.0 ;[>=0]


AI_sensors.dat:
I took all default passive sonar values and multiplied it by 3. Ballpark figure, puts most of them in the 20 to 30K range.
AI_Hydrophones set to 30K, later reduced to default value of 6K.


Observations:
Test 1: Escort was at crew rating 4.
Instant i hit 10 meters i was detected at ahead slow, doing about 4 knot.
DD detected me before the sonar operator acknowledged he was there (about 2 seconds later). About 5 seconds later i got him targeted in periscope at about 9800 meters.

THATS FAR.

Test 2: I dumbed down the escort to crew rating 1.
Results were the same as test 1.

After this i re-edited the AI_sensor.dat and changed the AI hydrophone from 30K back to its default value of 6K

Ran test 3: escort of crew rating 1 (unchanged from previous test)
Same results, detected almost immediatly, under same conditions, only difference is the AI_hydrophone was set to 6K while all specific passives were tripled in value.


Next, going to change sim.cfg hydrophones back to default values and run another 2 tests. If results are the same then going to lower hydrophone max range from Default *3, to default *2.

More later.


EDIT:
More testing:
Parameters used:

Sim.cfg:
-vanilla default

AI_sensors.dat
- AI_hydrophones = default of 6K
- All passives = default *3

Test 4: DD crew rating =4
Was not detected on dive, ran at ahead slow at 50 meters. Recieved no detection notice, DD just starting pinging when within active sonar range without any warning.

Test 5: DD crew rating =1
Similar results, not detected on dive, ran ahead at 50 meters at ahead slow. However this time i did recieve a detection notice, im guessing at about 1500-2K meters, Just before he starting pinging.

In neither test did i try silent running, i just ran at ahead slow at 50 meters running head on into the DD to see if/when hed detect me.

Clearly the settings in the sim.cfg play a MAJOR role. My thought now is to tone down the passive sonars to default, or default*2 and fine tune the CFG.

I should also note that all tests were with the above linked mission, calm seas, and clear weather, seems like ideal sonar conditions.

I think ill run another test before chaning anything at ahead 1/3rd and see when im detected.

[gouldjg]

Hi Ducimus

I am sorry but I have appointment in a bit so cannot do any testing this morning. Therefore my next comments are speculation only.

Lets for 1 second say my Hunch is right and that crew rating does in fact affect sensitivity and sensitivity then goes on to affect the rest i.e. noise, detection time etc etc.

If you leave waves to 0, noise to 0, and detection time to 0 also leave all passives to the same as they was default.

I can imagine you will get similar results with any crew rating.

I can almost imagine that you will start to get passive contact detections closer to what the real levels were set as in the ai_sensors.

This however means that it would be like this no matter what weather etc and in my book, it is just as much a game killer as when we started.

I do think we will end up with one crew setting, and some minor tweaks in the sim.cfg as well as some tweaks at ranges in the ai_sensors to find a common ground.

I personally do not want to remove the noise and wave settings at the moment just because I am getting results. I would rather try to find what ranges and crewratings fit best into the current settings in the sim.cfg

I am after finding what crew rating works the closest to the settings after I nerf them just a tiny bit. It may be that crew ratings will work at 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0. It may be better to remove them all together but CB has already warned of a possible side effect.


When I get back, I am going to set the waves and noise to a much lower level but not completely disapeared i.e. 0.001 or similar.

I am going to leave all crew in the game, and leave the ranges as they are. I bet any money, I start to get similar results to what the rest of you are experiencing.

I do suspect that crew ratings may not only affect sensitivity but they may affect other things and it is these that I want to discover now.


Anyway Good luck guys,

I am off now and will be back around 1pm uk time.

[Ducimus]

Hi Ducimus


Lets for 1 second say my Hunch is right and that crew rating does in fact affect sensitivity and sensitivity then goes on to affect the rest i.e. noise, detection time etc etc.



Your hunch is right.

MORE TESTS:


SIM.CFG = default

AI_sensor.dat
-AI_hydrophones = 6k (default)
-All passives = default * 3


Test1: Crew rating = 1
I ran at ahead 1/3rd at 50 meters I was detected im guessing at twice the distance i was before. In this case if it was say.... 1K meters, he picked me up at 2K. Hell he had to step on me to find me.

Test 2: crew rating =4
same parameters, only this time he picked me up at about 4K im guessing.

Im going to run both tests again at periscope depth so i can get a distance to target.

My conclusion as so far :

1.) SIM.CFG settings for lack of a better term seem to dictate "diminishing returns" on the passive sonar. Zero it out, he has no diminishing returns, put it back and he cant hear as far, or how much he hears.

2.) crew rating seems to effect sensitivity as to how soon the escort detects you.

off to test again.

EDIT:
OK More findings:

Test, same files.

Ahead 1/3rd, at periscope depth.

Test 1: Crewrating =1
DD detected me at about 1100-1200 meters.

Test 2: Crewrating =4
2a.) at about 4K meters i noticed he stoped steaming straight, but started zig zagging. Obvsiouly he knows im around, but im guessing hasnt pin pointed my location yet, hence no detection message.. i decided to rerun this test.

2b) DD detects me somewhere in between 3500 and 4000 meters and starts to zig zag.


Im betting by tweaking the CFG files we can increase the distance at which these events occur. Obviously crew rating is a big difference.. im gonna try it one more time with a crew rating of 3 and call it quits for the night.

EDIT:

Damn crew rating 4 makes a BIG difference.

just ran another test with crew rating 3.

Test 1:
at periscope depth at 1/3rd speed he detected me at 1200 meters and started evasive zig zagging. ( I should note that crew rating 1 makes no evasive manuvers where as 3 does)

Test 2:
same thing only at about 1500 meters.



So right now im of two thoughts:

A.) Use crewrating 3, and Tweak the CFG findings so he can hear a bit farther out, Hes obviously not dumb, and not uber, might be worth working with.


or..


b.) use crew rating 4, and impose various limiations to make them escapable and convoys approachable.


Honestly i think B might be easier then A. im not sure. Those CFG settings are very subltle, and make a marked difference. Adjust them properly and we could probably make any DD with a crew rating of 3 find us at some appropriate range.

I think another trick is to make them detect us at "ahead slow" while not in silent running. Personnaly i rarely go above that speed unless im going to miss the firing point. Going 1/3rd is like trying to ring a dinner bell. So a very sublte CFG tweak is probably whats needed.

EDIT: you know, i should rerun the same tests, only instead of 1/3rd, use 2/3rd or standard. Ill bet the detecton ranges will increase, probably in scale to the detection ranges at 1/3rd.

[gouldjg]

Exactly

Also remember

when we decide to have a single crew rating, all can be adjusted to fit better with game i.e. vision, Detection, loss contact time etc etc.

Also note that we now have a starting ground of rules to make the sub hydrophone work better.

Also note, maybe, just maybe, we can manipulate the crews night vision on sub.

Also note, If we did want random crews (I am not fussed as long as they work), then we could hope that timetraveller, Jcjones or der teddy make a randomiser for the CFG file e.g. SH3 commander.

All great future prospects, but now is the time to try and get the hydrophones working at intended ranges with only very minor discrepencies between the waves and noise.

A big Kudos goes to first person who gets a good result that matches the range for the equipment used on the DD :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Ducimus]

My final thought for the evening:

Change passives back to default or double them.. unsure at the moment, im leaning on default, depending on ranges.


I think what we have to agree on, is the crew rating to use, and at what range they should be able to detect you at any given engine settign (slow, 1/3rd, 2/3rd, etc)

Right now my thoguht is at 1/3rd a DD should be able to hear me at a maximum of 5K range (NOT 1200ish) . Slow and slow w/ silent runnning is a another story. Other speed settings are up in the air.

But what crew rating? Im thinking 3. Primarly because he seems to be a bit more consitant from what ive seen so far, and probably more controllable. This might require more experimentation. It might be just as simple as a fraction of a percent change in the CFG files.

My question now is, what variable should id start tinkering with?
Waves? or noise level? Exactly does each of these variables do?

EDIT: Bah,

Ran another test, crew rating 3, DD picked me up at 2500 meters.

Obvisouly there is other randomization going on. I guess if i want to be through id have to get a mean median and mode stastic on each crew rating.. but i dont think its neccessary, randomization variable on detection or not, the crew level does make a marked differnce.


EDIT:

I need to go to bed.. heh.

I just restored the AI_sensor.dat file to default, and changed the sim.cfg file. The only change i made was:

Noise factor=0.5

A crew rating 3 escort just picked me up at 4000 meters at 1/3rd speed.

[CB..]

i see we're going to go round and round untill we vanish up our own perfectly controlled ; perfectly standardised exhaust pipe here; ESPECIALLY if we all use the same mission---i'm out of here !!

[Redwine]

In neither test did i try silent running, i just ran at ahead slow at 50 meters running head on into the DD to see if/when hed detect me.

Clearly the settings in the sim.cfg play a MAJOR role. My thought now is to tone down the passive sonars to default, or default*2 and fine tune the CFG.

I should also note that all tests were with the above linked mission, calm seas, and clear weather, seems like ideal sonar conditions.

I think ill run another test before chaning anything at ahead 1/3rd and see when im detected.



Wake-up in the morning :dead: :doh: Good morning guys.

I run some test las night prior to sleep. And agree with you changes in Sim.cfg works.
But changes into AI-Sensors.dat, in beam angles make a lot of diference.
Reducing the depth of the beams introduce diferences at medium ranges and short ranges.
Changes in beam wide looks to be more important at near dog search, anyway had some utility to maintain undetected at far distances.

I reach to manage my problem wich was the Ubber Buckley and Evarts american DDs.

The problem seems to be now the crew rating afecting too much the performance, because we need to stablish a normal detection ranges, and crew rating looks to affect it too much.

I think so and it was my impresion, a sub running at silent running, and even at ahead slow, must to be near to undetected if it is submerged and not do any stupid thing as surface, rise snokel or periscope, reloading or repairing.

If not, they didnt has the need to create or invent the active sonar.

Detection ranges was long but for cruise and high speeds at surface, but for submerged speeds, those detection ranges was very shorts.

Whats next step ?

Do we need to adjust detection ranges for average crew quality ?

Or for crew rating 1 ? or crew rating 4 ? :hmm:

I had not time yet to test if crew rating affect other settings as adquire time, contact lost time, precision in the attack or in precision depth.

If we adjust settings to good game play with crew rating 3, a mission with crew rating 1, will be too easy.

If we adjust settings ro good gameplay in a mission with crew rating 2, when play a mission with DDs with crew rating 4, they will be Ubber Dds.

Whats the best game play solution ? :hmm:

[Redwine]

i see we're going to go round and round untill we vanish up our own perfectly controlled ; perfectly standardised exhaust pipe here; ESPECIALLY if we all use the same mission---i'm out of here !!

Easy.... :lol: ( is that the correct expression in english ?)

Came here CB, we need you, i will not stop up to test the changes in every single mission, from stock, from 3rd party, and campaign.

To save time, i always tes on only 4 or 5 missions, U-505, Brhman, Happy Times, Royal Flush, Biskmark.....

I use most U-505 because is the only one mission giving me problems ...... i consider it is out of game play, because it has unreal historical scape and survive probabilities.

back here. :up:

[caspofungin]

i see we're going to go round and round untill we vanish up our own perfectly controlled ; perfectly standardised exhaust pipe here; ESPECIALLY if we all use the same mission---i'm out of here !!

not at all, man. i'm just suggesting using a standardized mission until we figure out what does what -- then apply those findings to get better gameplay in other single missions and in campaign. tests will need to be performed in campaign eventually -- but i think while we're figuring out the basics, we're better off using similar test setups.

ie suppose you make a change in sim.cfg, and run a campaign game, and run into a convoy in a storm, get detected at 1k -- is that short distance due to your settins or due to storm?

re going round and round -- i agree. we're retesting stuff that's already been looked at. but maybe someone will notice something that's been missed.

anyway, pls don't go away. :cry: test how you like, and post your results -- whatever results you get will be appreciated by everyone here.

[gouldjg]

Right I am back


i see we're going to go round and round untill we vanish up our own perfectly controlled ; perfectly standardised exhaust pipe here; ESPECIALLY if we all use the same mission---i'm out of here !!

OK :roll:

I had a feeling this would happen.

I knew there would come a point when either our games (do not think so) playstyles or personal traits will cause a difference of opinion on this subject.

I am sorry to see you getting frustrated by some of my techniques and maybe you are on the right track and I am on the wrong track, whatever.

To be honest I do not care who is right and wrong as long as the problems are improved.

Do you think I am stupid, egotistic or something? Its time to be honest here CB! I recall some past comments but was not sure if they were directed at myself.

Anyway I am not here to get browny points with other players or modders. I am not dumb until it comes to standard deviation/maths and I am not going top appollogise for driving anyone up the wall.

I say thanks for all your contribution to the subject, some of which has been fantastic and inspiring. ALL in all I think we need to aggree to disagree on the methods of testing and should you crack it, well done.

No hard feelings from my side unless you are cursing me under your breath.

If people think I am hindering this project, please say so. I will gladly shut up and stay of the topic to go ahead with my other work that I have been wanting to do.

I don't want to be falling out and getting nasty because of a game.

[Redwine]

I had missing some thing or what ?

It is my point of view, some person open a topic about a speciphic behavior in the game, and some interested people start up giving their opinion about it, slowly the topic become in kind of "team" attempting to discover and break the AI and detection secrets..........

And i can see a very good job here....... :up:

Every one of us had added important information about how the detecting and AI behavior works.

Of course, not all us have the same problem, i have Ubbers Buckley and Evarts DDs wich kills the intersting in the game.

CB had stupid DDs, wich kills the interesting in the game too.

Finally we will arrive to a medium setting wichs give us a base to satrt up each individual personalization, may be some one want to release a mod, may be more than one mod, adapted to later times DDs, or more adapted for early time DDs.

The work done here is more than excellent, we know how the main part of files works, we know how to manage Bolds settings.

We only need the help of TT to manage sensivity in AI_Sensors.dat, and noise into Sensors.sim.

Come on guys stay together :up:

Back here CB :up:

[CB..]

Do you think I am stupid, egotistic or something? Its time to be honest here CB! I recall some past comments but was not sure if they were directed at myself.

Anyway I am not here to get browny points with other players or modders. I am not dumb until it comes to standard deviation/maths and I am not going top appollogise for driving anyone up the wall.

I say thanks for all your contribution to the subject, some of which has been fantastic and inspiring. ALL in all I think we need to aggree to disagree on the methods of testing and should you crack it, well done.

.

my only issue is simply put -- your difficulty in accepting that there are two distinct groups of people who have expressed problems with the gameplay--

one group says repeatedly that their DD's are more or less completely useless--

the other group says their DD's tend to be more uber (prompting the main subject of the thread)

what am i do to?

start intensively and rigourously testing soloutions to a problem i don't have? -in scripted missions designed to test changes that have little or no effect? (for me?)

because you can't accept that those people who have said their DD's are useless are actually telling the truth--(why wouldn't they be?)

i'm concerned here that because this makes constructing a one size fits all mod virtually impossible- you would rather this fact just went away!!
so would I!!!-- but it isn't going to--

so i cannot join in the tests you and folks are suggesting because they are just not relevant to my problem and the results would not be relevant to yours!!!

and as usefull as strictly controlled testing CAN be for checking details - you allways end up having to adjust the settings when confronted with all the differring conditions encountered in run of the mill campaign gameplay-
- it's better IMO to take a step back from the problem and try to see the bigger picture-- but this approach would be more relevant to the problem of generaly useless DD's than the problem of Uber DD's--

so the bottom line is really wether folks accept that there are folks who are basically playing a screen saver because their DD's are useless--

if not then there's nothing i could possibly say that would make any difference-- and this is what i'm finding--in effect group A and group B are actually playing different versions of SH3 with different problems

[Redwine]

It very clear CB, the problem is not the same for all us, somebody has Ubber detection, and some body has Dummy detection routines.

So the common problem is the detection behavior and capability.

You need to rise up it, i need to drop down it, whats the problem ? discovering how the settings works both problems will be solved.

If some body want to test on a speciphied or standarized mission, let them, i will test that mission too, but i will tes on many more too.

Finally the guys testing on a only one mission will be enforced to go to the game and test you changes into a multiple missions.

I think so this fact is not enought to disolve this common job :up:



Back to the topic, i am sttoped by the settings, if i adjust them to good gameplay for Ubber Buckley and Evarts, early DDs become Dummys and have the CB problem.

If i adjust values to have a hard game play with "normal" DDs, then the later Evarts and Buckley become a hell.

I think so the best way may be to adjust values according CB problem, and then attempt to drop down the Evarts and Buckley sensors.

[CB..]

well yes out side of the problems with useless DD's and Uber DD's
(the fact that there are two seperate problems experienecd by different groups of people in a fairly consitent fashion should eventually if taken on board yeild some use full piec of the jigsaw puzzle)

using the sim.cfg uber effct and calming them down with partial cfg entrys
is proving very reliable for my useless DD problem--

the DD's tend to react when a ship is torped and start searching (that in itself is a huge leap forward)

what happens next is very curious--- you get into a great period of gameplay where the DD's make seriuos attempts to kill you with varying degress of accuracy--(good gameplay)

if you survive this period (about 3/4 of an hour perhaps)
you enter into a dead end gameplay wise--

you find that the DD's retreat from the attack slowly one by one--untill only one is left----but that solo DD is un shakeable--and continues attacking even tho it has obviously run out of DC's

ad infinitum--

never gives up--

i'm spending time watching this DD to see wether anything it does gives a clue to why it hasn't re-joined the convoy as all the others did--

it can be fooled with decoys but never lost completely--
it's DC drops are no more dangerous than any of the other DD's
so i don't believe it is any more "expert" than the others--

yet it remains

[gouldjg]

Right then lets step back a refresh the problems.

1. Everyone has dumb DD when it comes to initial detection via hydrophones and different crews. Anyone who says they dont are confused, innexpirenced or just plain overlooking the issue. That is the problem that needs most fix. I am agreed on that 100% on that issue.

What I am not agreeing to is the fact that we should remove the cfg entries all together as thy are there to add variation within the game.

My approach is get at least get 1 crew rating for all that matches the cfg settings in one standard mission. Once I am happy that we have that nailed down the true ranges, it then becomes, like you say, another issue of all the random weather and its effects in the game. This means more tweaking, plain simple fact. There will be no good fix unless this is looked at you know it and I know it.

My possible solution was to set the waves and noise factors to such low number but all the same, numbers ratyher than blanks.

Now I could be very wrong here. I am guessing that sensitivity is affected by crew ratings and I have no clue if noise is also affacted i.e. it also has a longer hex value. This is the part where I am openly dumb.

Either way, it is as you say. We all have different motives to fullfill but I do suggest we stay in contact and at least extract info from each other rather than all go silent on the issue. CB why not start another thread and work on your work. If my theories (and thats all they are) are wrong, I will gladly sink into line with your suggestions via campaign test etc etc.

2. I am wondering if you are mistaking my outlook on the uber DD issue. When me and Redwine mention this, I do not think we are saying the DD is brainy etc. In fact I find them quite easy to shake off.

We are simply saying that a DD should not be able to turn as the uboat turns over the last 100 metres. This simply should not happen. I think it can be fixed together with the rest but you may disagree which is fair enough as you may be right.

An exagerated example

If you would be so kind as to set a default 505 mission and then start to run with engines at flank or slower so long as you get the DD on your tail end.

Watch this with external camera and when he gets close, try a hard rudder turn. You should notice that he immedietly follow you on the turn.
That is the game killer for me and others. whats more, it severly screw up my plans for a damage mod.

If you do not experience this, then we must have very different games and there is another underlying problem.

So there it is, thats my main two problems.

A

There is no uber DD but there is a issue over the last 100 mtres that make them turn with you once they have got on your tail.

B

Sensors are screwed with by crew ratings (my theory)

What do you suggest?

I suggest we all just sit back and do our own thing for a little while so we can all calm down a little. Anyway I need to do less chatting and more setting up so I can try and show proof.

Hey man, Your still a great guy in my book along with redwine and everyone else who has put their time into this.

Peace

[CB..]

your absolutely right about the turn thing--the DD's allways react to your turn when close and directly behind you even tho they have no feasible way of knowing you've made it ( and the imaginary Captain of the vessel can't guess right EVERY time !!)

i'm not suggesting tho that any one should use the sim.cfg uber effect as any sort of soloution to this sort of behaviuor-- but only for those folks who literally have to surface at flank in the middle of a convoy before the DD's detect them (this is not an exacegeration)-and then only till some-thing better comes along-- the problem with useless DD's is not a subtle one -- it really is that bad for some people (me included)

lets keep pouring info and thoughts into the thread because bit by bit a clearer picture of why all this is happenning will appear--

quick thought on the turn thing-- is it possible to increase the noise generated by the DD props this might mask the u-boat as the DD excellerates to make it's DC run?
or alternatively decrease the maximum depth (if this actually works?)
of the DD's sensors to 150 metres-- i rememebr i kept reading hints that most of time DD's didn't understand that the u-boats could actually dive below 150 metres and nearly allways dropped their DC's at that sort of maximum depth--even late in the war-- there was a story of a type 9 transporting parts of the ME 262 and variuos scientists to Japan in order to help with the Japanese research into nuclear weopons - and how they when attacked simply went down to 300 metres and were perfectly safe as all the DD's dropped at 150 metres max--tho dunno how much sense this makes-- this would mean that if you went below 150 metres you could lose them --- with the caveat that you ain't going to sink many ships at 150 metres! and if your damaged you can't perhaps get that deep--uber up the phones to compensate ?

[caspofungin]

re dd detection at close range -- in terms of active sonar, i've managed to get a dead zone w/out using the min range nerf eg if an escort is charging you, and you're at silent running, then eventually (distance depends on depth) he loses contact, the stealth meter goes green, and you can turn or whatever -- at silent speed. if you accelerate to flank, he hears you, and starts compensating for your position change.

my issue, specifically, is increasing the range at which sensors pick you up. if you drop noise factor, then you can be picked up alittle further away by hydrophones -- the downside is that at close range, you can be heard even at silent running, so the dd drops on your head.

also, ideally, i'd like to make your aspect wrt the escort play more of a role -- head-on or stern-on, you should be relatively hard to pick up on asdic.

@cb
what exactly are you doing w/ sim.cfg? deleting it? what ranges are you picked up at subsequently?

[gouldjg]

your absolutely right about the turn thing--the DD's allways react to your turn when close and directly behind you even tho they have no feasible way of knowing you've made it ( and the imaginary Captain of the vessel can't guess right EVERY time !!)

i'm not suggesting tho that any one should use the sim.cfg uber effect as any sort of soloution to this sort of behaviuor-- but only for those folks who literally have to surface at flank in the middle of a convoy before the DD's detect them (this is not an exacegeration)-and then only till some-thing better comes along-- the problem with useless DD's is not a subtle one -- it really is that bad for some people (me included)

lets keep pouring info and thoughts into the thread because bit by bit a clearer picture of why all this is happenning will appear--

quick thought on the turn thing-- is it possible to increase the noise generated by the DD props this might mask the u-boat as the DD excellerates to make it's DC run?
or alternatively decrease the maximum depth (if this actually works?)
of the DD's sensors to 150 metres-- i rememebr i kept reading hints that most of time DD's didn't understand that the u-boats could actually dive below 150 metres and nearly allways dropped their DC's at that sort of maximum depth--even late in the war-- there was a story of a type 9 transporting parts of the ME 262 and variuos scientists to Japan in order to help with the Japanese research into nuclear weopons - and how they when attacked simply went down to 300 metres and were perfectly safe as all the DD's dropped at 150 metres max--tho dunno how much sense this makes-- this would mean that if you went below 150 metres you could lose them --- with the caveat that you ain't going to sink many ships at 150 metres! and if your damaged you can't perhaps get that deep--uber up the phones to compensate ?

I remember that story also about the max depths. I also read that any DD was blind on last 200-300 mtres. We also have to consider currents here etc eetc.

Any way I do not want to go onto this subject yet untill we get hydro solved but here are some possible food for thought on the future.


One we do find the best crew to use, (I am currently getting all of my crew to a rating of 4) If anyone else wants to try this type of testing, I have taken the liberty to set them all in campaign files as it takes time to manually change. remember this is based on a vannilla game patched to 1.4.

http://rapidshare.de/files/8386990/Campaign_Crew_4.rar.html

The missions should take each person 2 seconds to do Individually so I have not done that yet.

Right back to topic.

DC pinpoints,

It is fair to say that they should not be able to turn on the last few seconds no matter if i hit flank or not, but that is their only advanages as far a uber is concerned. There is no other uber characteristic with DD's IMHO.

CB, I also encounter the lone DD that remains and is persistant. Maybe this is what Beery and Jungmann were on about as far as the 90 degree bearing is concerned and it being immpossible to lose the sonar contact due to DD fast turns.

Possible solution IMHO

Once we get other issues solved i.e. the passives and ranges, I have a feeling we may have to only slightly change the ai sensor.dat file to compensate the small discrepencies. (I think we will have to do this at some point anyway)

What we need here, is the ability to know what sensor we are dealing with in a particular mission. We then get this a close to settings as possible via very minor tweaks in cfg or infact we could just change the sensor to fit into the CFG settings. This is the trick part and like you say CB, we also have to consider the game weather etc.

The next step would be to apply the same number differences to all other passive sensors i.e. if we needed to tweak type???? by 500mtre and this is proven in game, then we add 500 to each passive sensor.

We then do the same for the actives,

After this we should start to get a baseline that works. Though this is still only a base line and not the complete fix due to need of campaign randomness weather etc etc.

Now onto the pinpoint.

I remember early in this thread when someone warned me about changing the min ranges too much as sometimes the DD lose contact and go all over the show.

What I now think is the following,

Even though I set 200 mtre min values, they were in fact not 200 in the game due to the nerfs i.e. noise, waves, and crew ratings. Thats why it porbably never showed any great results in the game and pinpoint seemed to still be present for some yet ok with my settings.

I have a small hunch that once we get the base line, we will find the uber pinpoint relitivly easy to solve because we will understand the range nerfs etc and waves, noise. I am so confident with this hunch, I would bet we could get very good results but that is a while off yet bacause as warned, we do not want DD's to suddenly become uber actives that hear us in silent. I have not yet even contimplated the aspect issue :88)

If on the other hand, we could infact add a node to the DC and then attach a decoy into it, we would get better results. It seems there is 2 decoys to use in game, we could use one for DC with very short duration and keep one for all subs with better duration. That would be a great dream come true if any model modders could try this.

Remeber I mentioned earlier about setting depth presision to 100 but the dc were too kaput and starting blowing the rear of the DD. Well that maybe was because of min depth setting being 25 hense they could blow too early.

My Hedgehogs at 300*300 seems to show better behaviour and give me greater confidence for survivability in the later war.

I am sure we will get this all solved but at the same time, I think it requires our tollerance, patience and open mindedness on the subject.

It is not the time to think about making mods on this yet as we are all still headbashing the subject with each other and this could change at any moment with a new discovery :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: .

[CB..]

:up: just to make clear i'm not actually going to be making any mod at all so i'm in no way in competition with the concept/aims/work of the thread :up:

i'm just hoping to get some better gameplay for my-self --

this lone DD thing- is a puzzle--happens every time i play---(again with the cfg deletions)

every thing actually is brilliant sometimes as in the one i have just tried the DD's detect me on the way into the convoy and somtimes only after i torp a vessell --- good gameplay--

but every time i get stuck with one DD that is impossible to shake even after it runs out of DC's to throw--

strangely i noticed that as each time the DD was not the same one (if i hit the same convoy as last time) so there's not much to gather from the sensors on this one--- BUT it dropped on me that the final un shakeable lone DD i end up with is in fact the first DD to detect me--all the others have a very natural pattern to their abilitys and can be shaken--

the depth edit didn't help either--

there's a kind of general flow coming about the cfg stuff

and the sensor.cfg entrys (normally associated with the u-boat crew) as G has said--and following on from waht you were saying eailier--

if we can remove entrys from the sim.cfg --can we add new ones?


how about changing the normal sim.cfg entrys for the sensors to the same as the sensors.cfg
ie so the sim.cfg hydrophone section looks like this

[Hydrophone]
Hydrophone range factor=1 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone light factor=0 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone aspect=0 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
Hydrophone already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
Hydrophone decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
Hydrophone uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]


same as the sensors.cfg

maybe waht is happenning with the lone DD ( and perhaps others depending on the circumstances) is that it gets a sensor boost a "tracking bonus" and it just simply never decays so it becomes uber where-as all those DD's that join in the attack don't get any "tracking bonus" so behave normally--- this would explain why things seem out of whack very often and not following the rules--

it must be follwing some sort of rules it's a computer game!

what do you say G'? as the tracking bonus would give the DD a significant boost to it's sensors it may start detecting and behaving in ways that exceed the normal sensor settings--?


i can 't think of any other logical reason why one DD should prove impossible to shake whereas all the others behave normally--

this may apply to some of the uber DD abilites aswell sense-ing your turns when it logically can't do so-

i'm going to try a run thru using the edit and see if it affects anything at all

thinking on it might need to be edited to read this if i follow the logic of the language--


[Hydrophone]
range factor=1 ;[>=0]
fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
light factor=0 ;[>=0]
waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]


as the sensors.cfg doesnt have section headers for each sensor and the sim.cfg does--

[gouldjg]

I am stuck on that one also CB.

I think one unit is selected as the commander or is that related to soemthing else.

To be honest here, I am quite clueless at the moment,

I do say that there is noting wrong with sometimes adding a line into the cfgs. I do it in zones.cfg and have also done it in crew settings for fatigue models.

Try an obvious line and see if anything happens. It would be cool if it does work, even if only one or two things work then it is a leap forward.

What I am a bit clueless to is what speeds do the Hydrophones on DD account for.

Should I be detected at sensor max range at flank, full, standard, etc etc.

At the moment the only thing I have done is set the crew all to 4 on happy times mission and all campaign files. I then sail in between the convoy and on comming DD's so am about 7000 mtres of from any possible contact. It seems like a ideal start point for my tests.

I have set the detection time to 0.5 for hydro and left the rest of the cfg etc alone for the moment.

Hopefully this should start giving me results on the standard deviations between speeds and ranges of detections for this crewtype=4.

Once I get some solid results, I use the maths to set the other sensor ranges.

This is why I would prefer to edit each sensor to suit rather than the cfg. Obviously the cfg may need tweaking at some point but I would love it to remain as close as original at this moment in time till I get the first base line.

So lets say I have a passive sensor that has a max range of 6000 mtre,

Is that max when I am at flank or max when I am at standard. Any help from historians amongst you would be great. What would be the best gameplay choice bearing in mind we use time compression which often bites us in the ass now and again.

[Ducimus]

i see we're going to go round and round untill we vanish up our own perfectly controlled ; perfectly standardised exhaust pipe here; ESPECIALLY if we all use the same mission---i'm out of here !!


I was only trying to put my finger down on how the passive sonar behaves in the DD's. Its by far not an all inclusive test because its only a single DD (not several) and the seas are NEVER as favorable in acutal play as they were in the test runs i was making.

I'm only trying to tinker my own game so i can enjoy it better. Im not looking to make some offical mod.

All that said, im going to post my last findings and then let you guys do with the info ive found (if you want to call it that) what you wil with it. Then im off to tweak my own game and start playing again :P

Anyway

Waves factor=0.5
Speed factor=15
Noise factor=0.5


Crew rating 3 escort:

1/3d speed he detects me at about 4000 - 4500 meters

Ahead slow, he detects me at about 2600-3000 meters

Slow and silent running, he doesnt see me at all, passed right under his keel.


Personnlay i think im gonna tinker with it a tinsy bit more so it forces me to drop 1or 2 knots at silent running when hes about 1000 meters or he detects me. I think running 3 knots at silent speed, right under his nose, i shouldnt be able to do that. 1 or 2 knots yes, but not 3. Just my personal settings.

Of course none of this will take into account of rough seas. I think im going to try zeroing out the wave factor and see if that just makes weather a non issiue and then just work with the noise level which for lack of a better word, might as well be labled "amplifier".

[Redwine]

@ CB :

I experienced that alone unshakeable DDs too CB, but it is gone after i touch the sensors angles.




About my experience at moment, i am sticky with to found an average setting to not have ubber or dummy DDs.

In this way i start up tp touch decoys.

As an experiment, and ashot in the darke, i rise up all 5 or 6 diferent decoys values.

I duplicated life time, and triplicated effective surface.
Saddly i can not manage noise, is the same problem than sensivity is a long secuence of numbers into the hexe file.
Any way i can copy the higger decoy noise value and apply it to all them.

the results is made a intentional provocation, against ubber Buckley and Evarts.

Then when detected, i lauched 6 decoys all at same time.

Was an spectacle, all 5 DDs was around the decoys as "flyes around honey" launching all they have onboard, helgedogs, barrel depthcharges.....

I was able to scape from that hell at silent running with any disturb.
Settings looks to be too much, these settings made the sacape so easy.


This fact can be used to manage ubber and that alone unshakeable DDs experienced by CB.

We can set files for a hard game play on crew rating 3, ( CB needs to rise up, others may be needs to drop down) and let the tweaked decoys to evade the ubber Evarts and Buckley DDs on crew rating 4.

:up:

[CB..]

I am stuck on that one also CB.

I think one unit is selected as the commander or is that related to soemthing else.

.

was just about to say the same thing--- i just ran a patrol against aconvoy using the sim.cfg hydrophone entrys i posted in the prvious thread---

went pretty well again but couldn't shake the first DD that detected me---

but i did pay very close attention to what it was doing and how the other DD's behaved around it--- this time i was ahead of the convoy- so i could let it drift over head-- i wa then able to get the uber DD stuck behind some merchants long enough to get up and torp a tanker-- and as the DD's maneuvered around the merchants i watched the uber DD closely--
it had absoloute priority over all the others---as the DD's circling got confused by the merchants they somtimes got in the way of the uber DD

and they allways gave way to it--even if actually making a DC drop---they would go into flank reverse to get out of it's way and reverse back over their own DC's damaging themselves in the process--very strange as the uber DD would only have had to make a very minor course correction to avoid the attacking DD---it was allmost as if all the other DD's were afraid of it !!

something and nothing i don't really know if we can't edit it then there's not much we can do with that---

i'll try adding the sensitivity entry to the hydrophone stuff ( i'm not having any success at all with AI_sensors.dat edits--tho i'll keep trying)


RED can you post the way to edit the decoy file? i want to have a look at it---

i have a minor idea regarding equiping the DD's with the decoy launcher instead of one of it's K/Y guns ( what is a Y gun anyway?)

i wonder if it will automatically launch a decoy at the same time as DC's if i replace one of the K guns with a decoy launcher--some thing along those lines --other than that im stuck in a bit of a catch 22


i've replaced the Y gun in the Clemson with the boldtype1

like this

[Equipment 19]
NodeName=W03
LinkName=BoldType1
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19420101

[Equipment 20]
NodeName=W03
LinkName=BoldType1
StartDate=19420101
EndDate=19451231

i have no idea what will happen---no idea at all- but as all my convoys have an extra squadron of 4 clemsons atacched to them what ever does happen i'll be sure to see it--if the game doesn't crash that will something--

there's isnt any mention of the bold in the subs equip files so i can't make a direct comparison of the correct way to add it (if there is a correct way to add it)

should be on a torp tube really but the DD's don't use their torp tubes so thats a dead one--

if some thing like this would work then we can edit the files to allow the DD's to use bold 1 making it les efefctive than stock and start the player sub on bold 2 instead making that less effective to match the original bold 1--

[Marhkimov]

I honestly don't know much about group commanders and setting a DD as a group commander, but I have a hunch that if the group commander is destroyed (whether it is a DD or not), then the DD (escorts) will begin to suspect that a u-boat is around. This is probably when they start actively searching for the u-boat.

Inversely, if you attack a convoy and destoy a ship that is not the group commander, maybe the DD's are clueless about the presence of a u-boat.

Does anyone have any conclusive evidence about my hunch?

[Redwine]

Of course CB ....

just use any free hexeditor, sure you have one at this time of jobs in SH3.

Open the file Sensors.sim....... do not confuse with .dat.

Look at the column at right and search for amun_Bold

There are many.

Each one as a secuence of settings as follows :

bubbles
life_time
surface
noise

After bubbles is a call for the visual effect.

Let one point free after life_time and surface

life_time.
surface.

the number start up at the second point after the words.

if i not remember bad, the first decoy has a surface of 250 m2

you will read

00 00 74 43

Into a hexeconverter you need to put it in inverse way to read the surface number :

43 74 00 00 = 250

If you want to input a new value in example 500 m2

insert 500 into a decimal to hexe converter 32bit y you will obtain :

43 fa 00 00

Then inser the number in the inverse order into the same place you obtain the original value, starting at the second point after the word surface

00 00 fa 43

Now your decoy will have 500 m2 effective surface.



Do the same with life time, starting at the second point after the sentence life_time


Repit the procedure for al 5 or 6 diferent decoys.



I do not know how to edit noise, wich is the most interesting here, but increasing surface has a good effect on active sonar.

the sentence bubble is refering to the bubble visual effect, not intersting for this topic.



Belw you can found the :

wpn_BoldsLauncher wich is the launcher with the setting :

bolds_count, wich is the quantity of bold inside the sub, but i dont know how to tweak it.

:up:

[gouldjg]

All sounds very promising really to me.

I think we are all doing a good job in our own rights here because we are all trying different things and have now come to the agreement to try and prove or dispell our results with a language we all seem to be understanding. i can see where you are comming from etc blah blah blah.

I looked at the commander settings in the campaign files and all I could find was a reference to the subs when commander = 1. All the rest =0.

Anyway, I sometimes too get the feeling that one attacking DD gets priority over the rest. I suppose there is some form of group rules that they play by.

I like both stories about the decoys and possible methods to implement a blind zone during DC attack. Cool stuff going on there.

Anyway guys, some news from my side,

Please be patient with me as am just nipping into a different direction at this moment in time so I can prove or disprove somethings that keep tinkering in my mind.

At the moment, I have all crewratings=4 on everything that moves on the sea :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: a bloody iceburg will probably attack me at somepoint knowing my luc.

I have left everything in the sim.cfg alone and am doing my changes in the ai sensors.dat which may look like I am taking a step backwards.

I have run a couple of missions on the Happy times mission as i stated before.

Test 1 = detection at flank/30mtres at approx only 1800 -2000mtre max with default sensors, and default cfg apart from detection time for hydro being 0.5.


My first tweak at AI sensors is as follows due to the fact that the DD detection is on third short, I have decided to add 3000 mtres to all passives.

Test 2 = Detection at flank/30mtres = 3500-3800 mtres

results = further tests needed to be conclusive but improvements noticed.


Hopes and desires

Like you guys, My main motive is my own satisfaction with the game and a possible new look at damage should things go to plan.

Also like you guys, I am not really interested in gaining Kudos in this area, because quite frankly, I feel that whoever does the mod, will have to keep on backing himself up against critics etc a bit like Beery with the fatigue mod and deck gun.


I am not bothered about losing other crewratings for the use of just one as long as that one works to my own plaaybility.

I am not being thrown off by the figures in the ai sensors dat file. To me, if I decide that I have to set all passives to 3x as much as their historical values to get my version of sensible ranges in game then so be it. That is of course If my plan is correct :doh: :doh: :doh:.

At the moment I am working to this line of thought before looking at uber DD's, decoys etc. I am just preying that such changes do not make them start detecting me in silent mode, which is of course a risk I must make and hours I must spend proving this.


If this line of thought fails for any particular reason, I am quickly going to catch up to you guys and start to really get involved with your lines of thought i.e. cfg changes. I do think I may need to do some CFG chages at one point anyway.

Please bear with me while I just either prove or disprove something.

[Col7777]

I just ran a test using a cruiser with 4 DD's attached, I got a sighting then sailed straight for it. I was not detected at peri depth and running silent, I raised the scope fired 2 torps then lowered and continued without changing course.
I sank the cruiser and the DD's started to look for me but with no real hostility. I continued my course and left them circling where I was roughly when I fired the torpedoes, they eventually formed up again and carried on their course.

The reason... I edited out the Sensor.cfg

So does this prove the Sensor.cfg is read as a kind of back-up to the Sim.cfg?

[gouldjg]

Col7777

I cannot say for sure. Are you on about the sensor.cfg as in the supposed sub affecting sensor cfg?

On a side note, it is nice to see that hydro detection is also affected by aspect of sub but again where does this come from? or is just the fact that once directly in between oncoming escorts and convoy, I start to circle whilst waiting.

The threat indicator is a great help here, I have never had it on so it is new to me.

[CB..]

I just ran a test using a cruiser with 4 DD's attached, I got a sighting then sailed straight for it. I was not detected at peri depth and running silent, I raised the scope fired 2 torps then lowered and continued without changing course.
I sank the cruiser and the DD's started to look for me but with no real hostility. I continued my course and left them circling where I was roughly when I fired the torpedoes, they eventually formed up again and carried on their course.

The reason... I edited out the Sensor.cfg

So does this prove the Sensor.cfg is read as a kind of back-up to the Sim.cfg?

yup Col :yep: i reckon that with out any doubt at all there some sort of reversed logic cross referencing going on between the two cfg files - i have no idea what the trick is but there's something going on :up:

tell you something even more likely to be difficult--i reckon SH3 has the same old "kick in the rubber pots" as SH2 had up it's sleeve ---just to make life really REALLY confusing (and i'm dreading saying this) the AI works differently in the campaign than it does in single missions---sigh -- i know-- i know---i'm going to have to have a look at trying to check this out---but my thought on this is that it doesn't matter how i edit the cfg's or dat now that i'm testing from the single mission launcher-----

( even tho the mission im using only uses shipping that is stored in the campaign.rnd like th scapa flow mission does --- the mission file only has the player sub written into it--every thing else in the mission comes directly out of the campaign files-- i thought this would be a easier way for me to test than running a dang full campaign patrol each time ---argggh!!!)

---i'm getting stuck with my lone uber DD unshakable without remorse or pity and often without even depth charges will circle me making runs directly over me for ever --i thought it was part of the uberisation (if there is such a word lol! ) due to the removing of the hydrophone entrys from th sim.cfg---but theyre all back in and the ai_sensors.dat is back to stock and it's still happening--

opposite problem from normal---except that i never play the single missions EVER!! i only ever play the campaign--i'll go back and run a proper campaign patrol from the career game launcher and i'll bet i'm stuck with 100% useless DD's again--- dang---

if so at least this would explain the two differing problems from the same game--but it'll be a pig to sort out if it's true--

on the plus side the Clemson with (the big boobys) bolds didn't cause any problems in the game -- i've just been DC'd for a long time by one and nothing un toward happened---tho try as i might i couldn't see any bolds in the water--but it's a start--

this is a weird one--

aha i know what i can do i can edit the flotilla cfg to place the start location for one of the career home ports to smack bang in the middle of the main convoy routes--that'll save my sanity a little--(what's left of it)

perhaps this relates a little to the cfg stuff perhaps the campaign engine and the single mission engine uses the cfg entrys in a different way no idea -some where to start-- :cry:

cheers Red for the bold info will get on it- fingers crossed

[Ducimus]

Misc:

- Im positive that regardless of crew rating, there is randomization involved on detection. How MUCH that randomization is, im guessing is dependant on the crew level. The reason i say this is because of varing results under the same test conditions.

-Sim.cfg
Noisefactor seems to be arough adjustment
Wave factor seems to behave like fine tuning.

With Noise factor of 0.5, and wave factor of 0.0 i was detected about 2000 meters from a crew rating 3 DD. At slow speed, i dont remember if i had silent running on or not, but i do remember that i repeated the same test with a noise wave factor of 0.25 and wasnt detected. Curretly experimenting with
Wave factor 0.25 (default is .5)
Noise factor 0.5 (default is 1)


-Thoughts on crew rating and DC's as a whole.
I noticed crew rating 3 is nowhere near as accurate as 4, but a marked improvement over 1 and 2. After watching a crew 3 most of the DCs were not even close. Ive come to the conclusion that the devs adjust DC's with an accuracy of 5 and radius of 40 to accomidate for crew rating inaccuracies. Adusting from the stock values i think neuters their effectiveness. The side effect however is crew4's are deadly.

-Crew rating 4' seems to act the most consistant, and aggressive, and responsive, but even then behavior is not 100% predictable under same test conditions.


- Group commander theory:
I have a bad feeling your right. On the U505 mission regardless if the DD's rating is 1 or 4, il'll bet they'll all respond and migrate to your vaciniity the instant you torpedo the carrier.


- Being depth charged at 300 meters by 5 Crew 4 DD's is cool :P
BTW, did you know the AA guns get all tweaked and warped ? I took an ashcan right above the conning tower, wrecked EVERYTHING. If it had hit anywhere else id probably been sunk. At 25 accuracy and 20 blast radius, i had 3 DC's get close enough to do damage. 2 atop the conning tower, 1 near the stern, the rest were just alot of noise.EDIT: I was at 300 meters, so the falling time made for the DD inaccuracy, at 150 meters id have been pummled.

[Ducimus]

Forgot to add,

Im gonna try a war patrol with
wave factor 0.25
Noise factor 0.5

WIth crew rating 3 DD.s

I just want to see if these adjusments change their situational awarness at all.

All The tests i ran are not completely accurate because:

1. Map is in 1940, DD's are equiped differently in 1940 vs say 44. So test was only against 1 type of DD passive sonar im gussing.

2. Only 1 DD, not 2, or 3.

3. Their not escorting anything.

etc etc..

But it did give me an idea on how the sonar is working.

[Col7777]

All good stuff fellas, can I just go back to my last post where I said I edited out the Sensor.cfg, there were four DD's, three of them circled then the fouth joined in, it was the last one, the fourth that stayed that bit longer after the other three resumed on their course.
CB is right as some of you have already said, one hangs around that bit longer, even though this time it didn't hang around too long.

[gouldjg]

Ok Ok
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I guess we are going to need to test these things in campaign mode from now on. (what a bummer cos I am lazy.)

CB can you give any clues as to what year to start at and where best to go in both base and patrol grids.

I kind of aggree with the consensus here about random behaviour regardless of crew ratings.

Like I just noticed before, I think hydro is also being affected by aspect. Either that is just something to do with my direction as opposed to where the propeller aims at or it has something to do with something.

Man, I thought this was starting to get easier not harder :damn:.

I will leave my settings as they are for a few missions in campaign mode and then start to report back results.

I have to admit, I tried my first campaign and headed staraight to scapa and indeed, unless I did something completely stupid, the DD can be as blind as bats even though I had set sensors.dat.

This is all very frustrating but I am not for giving in yet.

Remember some posts back, I mentioned I had seen a lot of jargon about random this and that. I forgot where it was and I spent all day flicking in every file that day (Very boring).

Good work CB, Col7777 and ducimus.

It looks like we have to delve into a massive can of worms here.

[Redwine]

-Thoughts on crew rating and DC's as a whole.
I noticed crew rating 3 is nowhere near as accurate as 4, but a marked improvement over 1 and 2. After watching a crew 3 most of the DCs were not even close. Ive come to the conclusion that the devs adjust DC's with an accuracy of 5 and radius of 40 to accomidate for crew rating inaccuracies. Adusting from the stock values i think neuters their effectiveness. The side effect however is crew4's are deadly.

mmhh.... :hmm: i tested dozen of times that mission with blast radius of 10 and depth precision 25 in depth charges, stock sim.cfg and AI_sensors.dat ..........and they still incredible precise and deadly. :dead:

I reduce their lethability, up to become into dummy DDs :88) , reducing their hydrophones and sonar beams. :up:

[Redwine]

I kind of aggree with the consensus here about random behaviour regardless of crew ratings.

Did you ensure to remove all renamed back up files as marhkimov suggested ? :hmm:

My infernal random behavior finish after do that ....... :88)

I know, i know..... i have not a logic explanation for it.

[Redwine]

I kind of aggree with the consensus here about random behaviour regardless of crew ratings.

Did you ensure to remove all renamed back up files as Marhkimov suggested ? :hmm:

My infernal random behavior finish after do that ....... :88)

I know, i know..... i have not a logic explanation for it.

[gouldjg]

oops

Forgot that one Red :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thanks

p.s. maybe it is time to use the satalite nave map mod here

[Ducimus]

-Thoughts on crew rating and DC's as a whole.
I noticed crew rating 3 is nowhere near as accurate as 4, but a marked improvement over 1 and 2. After watching a crew 3 most of the DCs were not even close. Ive come to the conclusion that the devs adjust DC's with an accuracy of 5 and radius of 40 to accomidate for crew rating inaccuracies. Adusting from the stock values i think neuters their effectiveness. The side effect however is crew4's are deadly.

mmhh.... :hmm: i tested dozen of times that mission with blast radius of 10 and depth precision 25 in depth charges, stock sim.cfg and AI_sensors.dat ..........and they still incredible precise and deadly. :dead:

I reduce their lethability, up to become into dummy DDs :88) , reducing their hydrophones and sonar beams. :up:

acutally this wasnt the U505 mission. It was the single DDsonar test i was runniing. I was bored an decided tojust let him DC me to see how hed do as compared to a crew 4. I didnt dive much deeper then 150 meters. Most of the DC's went off above, or around me. I found it a we bit more forgiving. What i was hoping for was system damage on the boat and none was received. Made me think about expanding the radius from 20 to 25 or so.

Now, with crew 4's, them buggers are good. But how good depends on your depth, the DC drop time, and explosion radius. 4 or 5 elites are surviable at 300 meters with no evasive manuvering.

Sorry if im getting a bit off topic.

[gouldjg]

-Thoughts on crew rating and DC's as a whole.
I noticed crew rating 3 is nowhere near as accurate as 4, but a marked improvement over 1 and 2. After watching a crew 3 most of the DCs were not even close. Ive come to the conclusion that the devs adjust DC's with an accuracy of 5 and radius of 40 to accomidate for crew rating inaccuracies. Adusting from the stock values i think neuters their effectiveness. The side effect however is crew4's are deadly.

mmhh.... :hmm: i tested dozen of times that mission with blast radius of 10 and depth precision 25 in depth charges, stock sim.cfg and AI_sensors.dat ..........and they still incredible precise and deadly. :dead:

I reduce their lethability, up to become into dummy DDs :88) , reducing their hydrophones and sonar beams. :up:

acutally this wasnt the U505 mission. It was the single DDsonar test i was runniing. I was bored an decided tojust let him DC me to see how hed do as compared to a crew 4. I didnt dive much deeper then 150 meters. Most of the DC's went off above, or around me. I found it a we bit more forgiving. What i was hoping for was system damage on the boat and none was received. Made me think about expanding the radius from 20 to 25 or so.

Now, with crew 4's, them buggers are good. But how good depends on your depth, the DC drop time, and explosion radius. 4 or 5 elites are surviable at 300 meters with no evasive manuvering.

Sorry if im getting a bit off topic.

Ducimus

Please do not be sorry for going off topic.

Because I am using crew=4 I am very interested in your reports about the level 3's especially if their DC's land close but not dead on all the time.

I can easily whip up damage model etc to compensate your wanting damage, but lets see if we can get the best crew to use.

I think you may have had a good find here but as usual we need to prove and dispell our work :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Ducimus]

Personnaly i dont consdier Crew 4 DD accuracy an issue.

Seriously if i want to throw them off, instead of making myself dive to 300 meters, all i have to do is increase the drop time of DC's and lower the explosion radius, the effect would be the same im guessing..

DC's falling astern (although sometimes they're ahead of the bow), close, but no cigar.

With crew 3's im inclined to do the opposite, however, more testing is required there. Its probably a far better choice to use crew4's (who are more consistant) and adusting from there.

[Ducimus]

I should add that what im afraid of, with the adjustments im making in the sim.cfg is convoys becoming near unapproachable by using crewrating 4.

This is why i want to run a patrol on crew rating 3 with the same adjustments. If their still idiots, then ill kick it up a notch to crew 4.

If their not idiots, then im going to start tweaking depth charges to account for their accuracy.

[Marhkimov]

So are you guys saying that it is better to use crew 3 or crew 4 as a base to improve upon?

EDIT: oh, ok.

[Ducimus]

I think crew 4 are more consistant, therego easier to adjust to.

Im being the lonewolf and experimenting with crew 3's first to see if their workable.

[gouldjg]

Just a quickie update.

I have now installed the spy nav map mod and just set all crew back to rate 4.

I also deleted my copies in the libary,

I started a quick campaign as all the above took some time to do, man that find and replace takes it's time for me.

Anyway,

I started off from base and at least I can see all the convoys in campaign.

I tried to intercept but a lone DD is spotted by my crew.

Ahh I say to mysel, time to test hydro settings from before.

SO I crash dive and guess what,

My threat indicator turns red, it does not yet say detected. Ship is about 7000 mtres away closing on my beam side.

I turn down speed and it goes back to green but as i time compress, as this was really just to test the spoy nav map mod rather than the sensors,

Guess what,

The DD detected me from a good distance. I am in 1941 war time so expected it to have better range plus the fact it was calm water and I had already nerfed by sensors.dat to around 12000 - 18000 depending on what sensor.

So I am calling it a night tonight but my hopes have re-gained.

I am definetly sticking to the campaighn to do test but it is so much easier with the spy mod.

My fears

1.We nerf too much that convoys are too hard to approach, same as ducimus fears. We may have to compromise some reality here but as long as I get better gameplay then I personally am going towards gameplay rather than ultra realism.

2. This was just some form of game conspiricy to screw with my head like CB says :rotfl: :rotfl: Next time I try, the DD will probably just ride over me.

3. I have to test this by going to each time period in the war and then get individual results per sensor (noooooooo, I am lazy arghhhhh)

4. After we do all this we then start to look at visual sitings etc etc (arghhhh this is hell)

My furture actions

1. Abondon single missions and only do testing in campaign now. I think CB and Col7777 have very good points to keep steering us this way.

2. I am still going to try and adjust the sensor.dat to see if I can infact get any results without really touching the cfg and report as I go. If this fails, I am falling into line like a good boy and wiping the egg of my face.


Good night guys

[CB..]

CB can you give any clues as to what year to start at and where best to go in both base and patrol grids.

.

hi sorry about the delay - a neighbour popped in and we got talking--so i wasn't able to get much done---

here's what suggest to make testing in the campaign slightly less insane--
(this one DOES work :oops: )

edit your Campaign_LND file for say Lorient to this

[Unit 39]
Name=Lorient
Class=NavalBase
Type=407
Origin=German
Side=2
Commander=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19380101
DeleteOnLastWaypoint=true
DockedShip=false
GameEntryDate=19400713
GameEntryTime=0
GameExitDate=19440909
GameExitTime=0
EvolveFromEntryDate=false
Long=-1440830.000000
Lat=6862770.000000
;Long=-399046.000000
;Lat=5729702.000000
Height=-17.000000
Heading=135.000000
Speed=0.000000
CrewRating=3
DelayMin=0
ReportPosMin=-1
ReportPosProbability=100
RandStartRadius=0.000000
NextWP=0

ive left the stock start location commented out for safe keeping--

this will if the theory holds out -( it works just tested it)-have you starting in a fairly good position to intercept most of the regular convoys just north west of ireland grid AM01( edit the contacts cfg to give your self unlimited range for the radio contacts--)

then just crank up the time excell and wait for the contact reports to come in --- they allways do pretty quickly usually i can get into attack range of a convoy within 15 minutes somtimes less---

1942 for a good period mid war (tho it's bit quiet early on)

(it's only a extreme version of moving the start location for the subs to the subpen --the game doesn't care where you begin )

starting from port each time is too much

if you are more interested in the american DD's then set the start location of the coast of New york and ambush the US escorted convoys as they leave port lol!

wonder what's going on and why things are so different --? nightmare really

if you want to move quickly thru the war testing as you go edit your basic.cfg time section to this

[TIME]
TransferFlotilla=1
NbDaysInBase=48
NbPatrolsInFlotilla=3
NbMonthsInFlotilla=6

daysinbase entry

this gives you about 4 patrols a year average so you can progress quite quickly---or make it less if you want to stay in the same time period for longer --for testing

[caspofungin]

interesting...

i'm not sure if this is what you guys have done already... if it is, then i apologize for telling you what you already know.

took sim.cfg, deleted the hydrophone and sonar entry, and replaced them w/ specific named sensors eg

[Type147A]
Detection time=0 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]

or

[Type123P]
Detection time=0 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.0 ;[>=0]

w/ this, i get long range hydrophone detection. i get a sonar dead zone at varying depths (using my historical beam geometry ai_sensor file). i get active sonar pinging beyond 90 degrees off the escort's beam. i also get a dead zone to both hydrophones and sonar in the escort's baffles, set at >150 degrees in the ai_sensor file. all this without changing noise factor or waves factor, so hopefully weather should still have an effect.

will try it a few more times in single missions and in campaign. sensitivity may have to be reduced. let me know what you guys think. again, apologies if its old news -- been of the thread for a while, may have missed some posts/points.

[Ducimus]

Intresting. :hmm:

you also reminded me to look at the sensitivity rating. im still using default 0.3.

Thanks :P

[gouldjg]

interesting...

i'm not sure if this is what you guys have done already... if it is, then i apologize for telling you what you already know.

took sim.cfg, deleted the hydrophone and sonar entry, and replaced them w/ specific named sensors eg

[Type147A]
Detection time=0 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]

or

[Type123P]
Detection time=0 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.0 ;[>=0]

w/ this, i get long range hydrophone detection. i get a sonar dead zone at varying depths (using my historical beam geometry ai_sensor file). i get active sonar pinging beyond 90 degrees off the escort's beam. i also get a dead zone to both hydrophones and sonar in the escort's baffles, set at >150 degrees in the ai_sensor file. all this without changing noise factor or waves factor, so hopefully weather should still have an effect.

will try it a few more times in single missions and in campaign. sensitivity may have to be reduced. let me know what you guys think. again, apologies if its old news -- been of the thread for a while, may have missed some posts/points.


Hi mate

We discussed it as a Possibility earlier but I have yet to try it.

I really do think that what you have done may be a great option but as usual, I am tied up in my tests and eagerly await further results post from yourself and others.

Here are my results after running 3 campaign missions and 2 single missions.

I also think we need a template to post results so I have took the liberty of making a blank template to save me typing for too long.


Crew Rating = 4 I find the most intelligent DD and also suspect the most less penalised one with regards to sensors.

Sim.cfg settings:-

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=0.5 To get faster results to measure
Sensitivity=0.03
Height factor=0
Waves factor=0.5
Speed factor=25 To ensure game is using all DD speeds for test results so I do not have to check what DD was travelling at.
Noise factor=1.0

AI_Sensors_dat txt :-

AI hydrophone the one main sensor
Max range = 18500

QGAP = 17500 max range
QCIP = 16500 max range
QCeP = 15500 max range

type144p = 18500 max range
type138p = 17500 max range
type128p = 16500 max range
type123p= 15500 max range


My view up to date

Guys, I can now see why CB was getting frustrated. These setting as posted above seem to be giving me good results both in single missions and in campaign. I obviously have to do a lot more fine tuning for my own benefit here but I seem to be only getting detected within a certain range of upto 8000mtrs running at flank/50mtre depths depending on time of war. I am not getting detected at 15000 mtres because I believe that due to me having crew4, I am begginging to compensate its inbuilt penalties.

The DD range decreases as my engines slow and even a silent, a DD started getting sniffy at 1000mtre.

My Gameplay

My thoughts are this,

It will takes forever and a sunday to get the historical values bang on target in this game. The varibles are massive when we start looking at noise, aspect, waves, speeds of DD's etc etc I wonder why crewrating was ever put in the first place.

In my tests, I was attacked by a 1941 DD, it ran a clever pattern and its DC's were deadly but then I was deliberatly being dumb.

I have to be honest here and tell you that this felt much more like how I used to play SH2. I felt that my war tonnage is going to drop rapidly now on approach to convoys. I am also dreading using Improved convoys :yep: .

Now if you guys are not getting similar results with the above settings, then I really do not know whats going on :doh: . It seems as though we will end up with a multiple of modifications that only suits individuals which to be honest, we worked on this so we deserve to be a bit selfish with our preferences IMPOV.

Don't get me wrong guys, I am not bailing out on this subject. I am just trying to get the ai_sensors_dat to match the crewrating and sim.cfg with the intention to make as little as possible changes in the sim cfgs.

I know I may have to make some minor tweaks here and there as things pan out but I am confident I am on the right track for myself.

I think there is a trillion and one ways to change things here and we are all just going to get so frustrated at the end of day, we may start to burn out.

My personal main attention is set at making the DD's a little more challenging, I seem to be getting there in small steps. Whilst history is trying to be kept too, I am not spending weeks and weeeks and weeeks doings something that will only be argued against by the ultra realistic fans the novice game fans and the piss poor players.

If the community wants some improvement they are going to have to read all work on this thread or take whatever mod comes out and tweak out the discrepencies themselves. It is just such a huge issue like CB says.

One things for sure,

together we have unwrapped a lot of faults and a lot off different ways to tackle these. Where does it end I wonder. i am going for what feels right for myself and as always will share infor as I go.

I am starting to think this game has a preference to the PC it runs on. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Have a visitor so will report back later.

[Marhkimov]

Ok ok, just make your personal tweeks, and someone will be by later to do the modding.. ;) ;) ;)

[CB..]

to be honest guys i'm not happy that this is the way it's panned out-- i've been testing bia the campaign engine since the game came out and have never gotten any results that i really liked - that didn't- especailly after the patch--get randomised so much that they became meaningless---

what is it about destroyer behaviour that game devs find so hard to re-create--?

i'm not looking forward to testing back in the campaign engine again i must admit--it was a fairly thankless task--with completly un certain results---the only way i could get relatively consitent results was commenting out all the crew ratings from the campaign.rnd--

hopefully there's another way---i'll try the dat /cfg edits you show G' and see how i get on--

last night i tried again to test the concept of adding bold to a DD using the info Red supplied this i think is the way to do it

[Equipment 19]
NodeName=W03
LinkName=wpn_BoldsLauncher
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19420101

[Equipment 20]
NodeName=W03
LinkName=wpn_BoldsLauncher
StartDate=19420101
EndDate=19451231

but i didn't see any bolds launchs from the DD --the game didn't crash tho--so that's something--

chances are either
it's the wrong node--;
there's no ammo--
it needs more of "deep" hack---

[Redwine]

Well ... i am sticky at same place, not bad, but slow progress.

I am walking on the edge of a knive, balancing for dont fall into CB problem (dummy DDs) or my original problem (Cancerbero DDs).

Finally i let all Sim.cfg values as stock, and i manage DDs lethality with sensors beam angles.

The problem was if i adjust an average settings, the early sensors become too easy, may be real, and later sensors become so hard, may be real too.

But for gameplay and enjoy i want a little hard on all, not poor, and not a hell with no survive provability.

Then i start rising-up the early sensors, and slow down the later sensors.

Plus i tweak the bolds (decoys) as ahelp to eavade later DDs.

I am testing on many single mission, not test on campaign yet.

I am attempting to make the sub near to undetected when depth and slow, it may be real, any way you can not sink anything in that way, you must to rise periscope and take speed to maneuver.

I am not satisfied with my results yet, but looks good, the main problem is a little change in beam angles produce a big change in DDs behavior, i need to start up a fine adjust degree by degree.

Will help a lot of if anybody can discover how to manage those long hexe numbers for sensivity and noise.

:up: still working.

What are you doing boys, nothing ? back to job ! :rotfl:


PD :

@ CB : sorry i was looking for how to introduce the bolds or bolds launchers, and no way.
Any way i can not understand well your idea.
Do you want the DDs produce a some kind of noise to disturb them seves ?

[CB..]

@ CB : sorry i was looking for how to introduce the bolds or bolds launchers, and no way.
Any way i can not understand well your idea.
Do you want the DDs produce a some kind of noise to disturb them seves ?

:yep: that was pretty much the thought of it :up:

would have the same effect as noisy DC's but thought it might be easier to do--the DD's don't carry bold ammo tho - so i need to some how add bold ammo to the DD's--probably easier to add some noise to the DC's some how--

i can't bring myself to start testing the sensor stuff again untill i've built up some more enthusiasm again--- so i thought the bold thing might be a distraction for a while--

[gouldjg]

Redwine

I think I am almost the same as you as far as results are showing.

CFG basically the same but changes to sensors do appear to have effects in game for me, but only after I delete the copy file as I have learned.

I am running by the theory that every crewrating adds extra nerfs onto already nerfed sensors.

Some are too dumbed down and some are too dumbed up.

I am training my level4 crew up in the game to do what I want them to do regardless of how silly the figures may appear to be out.


My suspicions are that each sensor has a different sensitivity/noise or that they share the main sim.cfg. Either way, I feel that crew ratings further nerf what has already been nerfed if you catch my drift.

What I am finding is that even though the sensors says max range = 6000 mtres, In the game, even in ideal sea states etc, this simply does not reach those ranges. I therfore am taking the approach that I should make those ranges match by adding or subtracting numbers to the figures and this is working. There is absolutely no chance of getting any super accuracy here though.


I am hoping that after some time, I may start to be able to ween it back down to more historic behaviour unless it completely kills the game (Convoys become unapproachable etc).

I am very interested in how you are appoaching your escape strategy i.e. narrow beams etc. Can you expand some more on your theory for me please.

I would also not mind a little more effective decoy however I am clueless as to how many a sub had at its disposal.

I am equally after both early and late war DDs to be a bit more challenging so long as they do not become too uber. At the moment I am considering individual sensor tweaks but this takes a lot of time so no fast results can be gained. Maybe each DD will behave accuratly anyway due to the sensors sensitivity for that time period. Even though I have all the same crewrating, the early DD,s attack is still not as bad as the late wars DD attack.

It is only through this thread, do I seem to be getting good feedback.

I have just loaded RUB and changed all crew to lvl4 in campaigns and single missions. It takes bloody ages on my PC ??????????.

I need to have air power and the new sub radar mod as well as jungmanns snorkal fix etc etc.

With regards to visual sightings from the DD's, I notice that they can spot anything that pops out of the water as it height setting is 0. I think jungamann changed this to 1 as the RUB says 1.

As I am getting better improvements with the hydrophone which now forces me to be a lot lot lot slower, I think it is unfair should the DD spot my periscope at 3000 mtrs if it is only a small fraction out of the water. I am considering attempting to put a small nerf here. Either by changing min height to a 0.5 rather than 0 or 1. I was also considering just upping the time by a second or two for a slight delay.

Was there any other possible reason why it was upped to 1 in RUB i.e. air etc snorkel?.

What are your experiences? Does the game already model this well?

Anyway this post is too long :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Sorry

Will keep popping in to see how things are panning out for others.

Good luck all

[gouldjg]

i can't bring myself to start testing the sensor stuff again untill i've built up some more enthusiasm again--- so i thought the bold thing might be a distraction for a while--


Man I hear you, :yep: :yep: :yep:

I played Texas Holdem with the lads most of the day to get a breather for a while. Lost £40 but it was a good buzz.

I am sure they cheat :arrgh!:

Anyway, I introduced them to the internet version. They took ages.

At one point I had to get firm and said

"com on lads, let me check something (this website) I have a life too"

So i click onto subsim and the lads rofl at me.

I felt Sad :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Marhkimov]

Hi Gouldjg,

Just a thought, but IMHO 1.0 meter minimum periscope height is good as is.

Imagine if it is set to 0.5 meters and we are in a storm. It would be nearly impossible to keep the periscope hidden by 0.5 meters. Oh heck, it's already impossible to conceal the periscope by 1 meter.

IMHO, attacking in a storm should be easier than calm water... Not the other way around...

What do you think?

[Ducimus]

I think theres alot of randomization were dealing with:

1. State of the seas.

First and foremost i think this is biting me in the ass. Wave factor and probably noise factor play a major role here, and i think theres a degree of randomization to it. Im slowling whitling down these figures. Right now im trying 0.4 noise factor and 0.20 wave factor.

If anyone wants to experiment and hasnt tried this yet, try zeroing out wave factor. I think what you might find is when you get a certain distance to a DD (say within 2K radius), no amount of creeping or silent running is going to work.. at least thats the conclusion my experiments have lead me to. If anyone can duplicate that, i think its a step forward.



2. Crew rating
Im of the conclusion that theres a randomization percentage assoicated with how well a DD can detect you based on crew rating. The lower the crew the greater the random factor (odds in your favor), the higher the crew, the less random percentage (odds not in your favor). But even with crew rating 4, im certain theres a randomization going on that will vary results. Combine this with the sea state, i think were going to have unsatisfavory results more often then not.


3. Year and equipment
While i havent really looked into it, im fairly certain that not all DDs are equiped the same, and equipment varies by year, and nationaly? Anyone know for sure? If so this will vary results.



Last night i replaced all the crewratings in the U505 mission from 4 to 3, and while i had poor results in detection (i changed the starting position and i think i inadvertantly put myself just behind their passive sonar cone), i had excellent results in the ensuing depth charge attack. Unless theres some other factor in there that overrode the individual crewratings, the results i had from that DC attack was very promising (they sunk me once), and has encouraged me to work further with crewrating 3.

With crewrating 4 im hesitant to open the floodgates to uber passive sonar, but less so with crew rating 3.


I just started a war patrol with Improved convoys, all escorts crew rating in the SCR file have been replaced to 3 (old values ranged from 0 :stare: ,1, 2, and 4)

As soon as i latch onto a convoy ill hopefuly see soem results. But whats going to skew them is the damn weather! always 15 winds, and alot of storms. If i could cut that factor down by half id be a happy camper.

[gouldjg]

Sounds like you have already expeienced gameplay of this factor so I take your word for it :up: .

Due to the fact that I tweak more than play, I sometimes get lost on parts :rotfl: :rotfl: .

I find myself getting DC attacked 5 hours a day. Then 3 hours dwelling on possibles, then 2 hours wasting time on immpossibles, you know, the typical life.

Wife hates me (no sex for a week scenario). At one point I was debating just getting her a escort for the night to give me a rest :|\ .

What she does not know,

Next week, I start to attempt at hammering out other niggling bugs in the game i.e. ramming etc. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Divorce comming soon

[Marhkimov]

LOLOLOL gouldjg,


Maybe you should stop running these here rediculous tests and go have some "fun" with your wife...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Ducimus]

My wife hates this game, she told me so last night. lol

Anyway, again, if someone would be as so kind, experiment with:

Wave factor = 0.0


Noise factor... ehh 1, or 0.5, or whatever. Hell try 1 and 0.5 if you have the time.

What im thinking what you'll find is this:

Game behaves as normal, but the instant you get within a certain radius of a DD (1200 meters give or take a few hundred), you can't hide.

If you can establish a normal pattern.. err.. i dunno some type of consitant distance. Try lowering the noise factor and see if that "can't hide radius grows" in size.


Ultimatly i think were going to end up with some very small faction of a percentage in the sim.cfg

If anyones already done this, what were your results?

Gotta run, late for work.

[gouldjg]

Hi Ducimus

1. State of the seas.

Yep, no doubt about it, the sea and weather are taken into effect. It is good that you are trying by training the cfg to match crew as opposed to me training the sensors to match crew.

We will both get results and understand different ways. I was going to do this at one point but when I looked at equipment, I feel more suited to the trial and error method.

I think both methods will work just as good and bad as each other. There will come a point where you need to look and sensors and I will need to look at cfg for minot changes.

2. Crew rating

Absolutely. Only with one crewrating will anyone get anything near to real results. That is a fact plain and simple. I could be very wrong, maybe someone who has all the formulars and a full maths Degree could do it but not me. I stick with 1 and do the best I can. At the moment I am leaving the wave factor to test in storm conditions. This is where the crux of the problems will become apparrent and more obvious results will appear.

3.Year and equipment

Yep it does vary by year and it seems to mimic British equipment and American as someone said earlier.

Yep your right this will contribute to randomness.

This is why I spend my time in the sensor_dat rather than the cfg though eventually I will have to look at minor changes in the cfg.

Each piece of equipment will have its own sensitivity thus I supect the crew rating will aslo account onto it, the weather etc etc.

There is no way we will all get exact similar results, even if we had the same mission and settings.

You may be 100 mtres north of me, but that will be enough to trigger off certain triggers which will then send you into a different type of game than I have.

Sound riduculous but it is true.

All we can do, is go by our own hunches and report here on results. We train each other.

[gouldjg]

LOLOLOL gouldjg,


Maybe you should stop running these here rediculous tests and go have some "fun" with your wife...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I prefer testing SH3 than sex with my wife. Similar results really,

She gives a head slow

I go deep

Launch a dud

Go deeper

Blow her top

Get Depth charged by the emotional chat afterwards.

I am sure many feel the similarities

[CB..]

well i did give in just tried a quick campaign patrol (contradiction in terms :-? )

all i did just out of desperation was to add 10,000 metres to all the passives---left the hydrophone cfg entrys as thus

[Hydrophone]
range factor=1 ;[>=0]
fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
light factor=0 ;[>=0]
waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]

why the heck not lol---

i've tried everything else--

this time i used the detection meter--( never used it before)

little green sub and all that--seemed a bit wierd but great for testing

this time i made dang sure i had deleted any copys from the library folder

found a convoy dived at 6000 metres (mild fog conditions- calm seas)
silent running
immeditately got detected --little RED sub---
thought oh eh what's all this then?

UBER DD's in me campaign --!!

so finally some sort of evidence that the sensor edits are sticking (had previuslty tried 40,000 metres on passives to nil effect)

so finger crossed that's the trick---as Red says nowt happens if you don't delete the back up copy TT anayzler makes when you edit the dat--

very strange state of affairs--

but finally some hope---all my crewratings in the Campaign.rnd were set to 2

the little red sub stayed red 100% of the time except for the tinyiest of green flashes as the DD was directly over head--this meter things is very handy!

so i can bring the passive ranges down again and work on making that little green flash into something more prolonged-- via the minimum distance to start with--

i'll leave the weird cfg entrys as they are untill it looks neccessary to change them to something more like the normal entrys--

short of the randomisation blues starting again (which Red says seem to diminish after deleting the "copy of" file) things are looking up--

no luck on the DD launching bolds state of affairs tho as yet--

i have a feeling making the DD's screw excessively noisy might give good results tho--ball park stuuf to deaden their sensors and those of the circling DD's whilst one is over head--(ie dropping DC's --same thing moere or less--any one know if this is do-able--if the bolds can have their noise increased or radius--can the DD screws have a similar edit?)

[gouldjg]

:up: CB

I hope this stays for you, then we can all make huge steps forward. I hated the fact that something may have seemed it was not working for you. I am now expecting some excited posts back as you discover the possibilities and problems :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: . Hope you missis aint expecting any loving tonight:rotfl: :rotfl:

:rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:

Remeber though, this is now the start of the problem as a whole and we probably all need each other here the most.

In my tests I set speed factor upto 25 because I suspected this is just a shut-off number so i can ensure all DD,s heard me.

It may not be a shut off number or in fact may be affected by other stuf i.e. crew which in turn creates randomness like the rest.

It may not however but we have to think like that.

I am sure there is one huge mathmatical model at work here. We dont have the formula but we will get something good out of it.


Lets us not forget the other stuff we have learned i.e. the possibilities of maybe adding the individual sensors to the cfg etc etc.

Good luck and I luck forward to your findings. Deep down, I think it would be possibly you other guys who will find the best solution. Sometimes I am too flipant in my work.

I can see something, I can test it, But I am damned about the minute details and historical facts. Here I have to rely on the more experienced.


I tell you guys,

I can feel we will start coming on in leaps and bounds now

[Ducimus]

I think i may be on the cusp of something and i wish i could try it out right now, but can't.

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, i think max hydrophone ranges are *almost* irrelevant.

Let me give you a little metahphore here if thats the word for it.
I dont care how good your hearing is, when you put in a set of ear plugs and ear muffs over that, your not going to hear much.

The earplugs and earmuffs to which i refer are wave factor and noise factor.

We know this much, zeroing out the noise factor and wave factor, a 1940 DD can hear a dolphin fart in the indian ocean from the bay of biscay.

I ran into this once and i need to reproduce it:
Noise factor at 1, wave factor at 0, at silent speed, DD can heard me at a close range radius (with2K i think) regardless of what i do. (almost as if the noise factor was 0 when close )

I ran into this once, and thought "well thats no good" and immediatly put the wave factor back in. IN hindsight i think that WAS good.

My thought now is this:
Use noisefactor 1, wave factor 0.
Find the edge of the detection radius. If its consitant, lower the noise factor to see if you can enlarge this radius. If you can get this radius to a favorable size, THEN add the wave factor in, and start adjusting it to taste.

Now IF this works, heres the thing.
Need a standard DD to adjust too. You can dial in your test DD perfectly but you'll still have dumb and uber DDs. Can we mod all DD's to use the same equipment?

Doing that, i think you can mod the sim.cfg to adjust the hydrophones under ideal conditions. Infact under ideal conditions i think you should uberize the DD, to account for the constant crappy weather conditions in campign. Near perfect hydrone conditions are rare.

[gouldjg]

I think i may be on the cusp of something and i wish i could try it out right now, but can't.

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, i think max hydrophone ranges are *almost* irrelevant.

Let me give you a little metahphore here if thats the word for it.
I dont care how good your hearing is, when you put in a set of ear plugs and ear muffs over that, your not going to hear much.

The earplugs and earmuffs to which i refer are wave factor and noise factor.

We know this much, zeroing out the noise factor and wave factor, a 1940 DD can hear a dolphin fart in the indian ocean from the bay of biscay.

I ran into this once and i need to reproduce it:
Noise factor at 1, wave factor at 0, at silent speed, DD can heard me at a close range radius (with2K i think) regardless of what i do. (almost as if the noise factor was 0 when close )

I ran into this once, and thought "well thats no good" and immediatly put the wave factor back in. IN hindsight i think that WAS good.

My thought now is this:
Use noisefactor 1, wave factor 0.
Find the edge of the detection radius. If its consitant, lower the noise factor to see if you can enlarge this radius. If you can get this radius to a favorable size, THEN add the wave factor in, and start adjusting it to taste.

Now IF this works, heres the thing.
Need a standard DD to adjust too. You can dial in your test DD perfectly but you'll still have dumb and uber DDs. Can we mod all DD's to use the same equipment?

Doing that, i think you can mod the sim.cfg to adjust the hydrophones under ideal conditions. Infact under ideal conditions i think you should uberize the DD, to account for the constant crappy weather conditions in campign. Near perfect hydrone conditions are rare.

Yes your right but here are my thoughts (you will see the similarity)

You mod waves and noisefactor which in effect makes the existing settings better or worse at hearing however when I was trying this, it become very difficult as you say with equipment etc and thus may have needed much much work.

I am lazy so I looked at other ways to get similar results.

Now I look at ranges of equipment and then get them to match roughly what they should be detecting me at according roughly to real life but not if it kills gameplay. this is where i am lazy.

I test this in happy times mission as seas are calm and I am 8000 mtre away from any DD. I zip into middle ground of convoy and approaching DD.

The convoy DD uses type123 as it is a Huntclass1 if I remember rightly.

Once I got an average good pickup rate (not precise but good enough for my gameplay) I then added the same range nerfs as I did with that of type123 to all other passives.

Look at rough example. the figures are not accurate but this is just to show the method.

e.g. Type123= original = 6000 mtrs my conclusion = 14500 which now shows good pickup ranges and I could still go slow or silent untill very very close.

So the difference between the original and the nerfed = 8500 This will later need sorting to be more precise

I have now added 8500 to each passive and changed the main hydrophone max to the highest passive.

SO now I have DDs with a crewrating of 4. Under calm seas they are now picking me up at good ranges when I run flank etc, depending on range. ( I now need to start getting historic)

I can slip by them if i am silent and my aspect is good.

I have yet to test the same results in rough water but suspect/HOPE it will be a standard compinsation effect of the waves and noise factors.

I am no way finnished but almost convinced as I always have been, that this is the best way to go. If waves factor is too severe later on in testing then I will adjust each piec of equipment individually to compensate. I do however want some situations where noise and bad weather work in favour for me. This is my randomness rather than enemy crew.

Now here is the problem,

I have to spend many hours tommorow to actually get this all done at a reasonable level.

I am pretty convinced that Redwine and CB or even Yourself will end up with more historic factual ranges here. We are so close, I know it. ( a spanner drops) this is turning out to be a search for the baseline I was talking about earlier.

p.s. I also think that each sensor has a individual sensitivity which will automatically make early war DD's less effective. I suspect each sensitivity was also effected by crew ratings in a massive maths formula. You just have to look at fatigue formulas to get an idea of the depth they went too.

Like I have always said, putting Crewratings in this game IMHO really screwed this up. It was meant to be a very diverse and complex system which suited many many playstyles, plus the multiplayer aspect. Time and testing could not be done properly.

This is why CB was really onto something when he said things were better without them.

I am very interested in what range differences you are noticeing per tweak. If you do this in small steps, it may give us clues for later on should we need to do final tweaks.

All in all great work and keep at it. :up:

[Ducimus]

What passive sonar do most DD's use in 1942 or 1943?

What is its name, and its range?

Heres an ad hoc temporary solution:

either
A.) change all passive to the value of one sonar, the one used in 42 or 43.

or
b.) mod ALL DD's in all years to use the exact same sonar? (is this possible?) If theres a equipment sensitivity rating this is the better soluation.

Either way it gives me something resembeling a benchmark.


With that modified version of the sonar test mission that was posted im going to set wave to 0 and play with the noise factor. If i find a good radius ll start adjusthing the wave factor.

I wiill try and overcompensate for bad weather. But im not sure as to what statistics i should use.

Off the top of my head ifeel that:
at 1/3rd i should be detected at 5K to 6K range
at slow i should be detected starting around 4K, FOrcing me to run silent.
the hecker is silent. Im going to try and adjust it to he can hear silent running within 1K distance or so The hope is that the normal variable weather will make silent running barely undetectable under 1K - the problem here though is in calm weather, your going to have a ROUGH time losing him :-j

Hopefully this works, and establishes a benchmark. Can adjust other pasive sonar from there maybe.

[Redwine]

Hi guys.... i have good news !! :up:

I contact Timetraveller two days ago requesting his help to be able to manage sensivity and noise with his tools.

He made a new tweak txt file to be used with Mini Tweaker Tool, wich allow us to manage sensivity.

The TT caballary at rescue !!

Our nightmare is finished.


download it from here :

http://rapidshare.de/files/8460303/AI_Sensors_dat.zip.html


Put it into the TweakFiles folder into your Mini Tweaker installation.


He will update the tweak file package into Mini Tweaker and File Analyzer soon at his site.


Now you will be able to see, sensivity for Ubber DDs sensors are not set at zero, due to this fact the program do not take the value we adjust into Sim.cfg for 4 of those sensors wich remains ubber.

4 or 5 of them, those used by Buckley and Evarts are set at 0,05 and 0,06 and 0,07 :damn: ubber ubber sensors.


Now we can adjust sensivity for all sensors individually, each one with its own sensivity.....

Thanks to the genius TimeTraveller.

I can see he dont post it here because, may be he dont update his web site yet, but he send my that little file above.

Download and be happy.......... we can sleep tonight !! :up:





@ CB : about the fact to erase the renamed back-up files, Marhkimov was who discover this fact..... believe me it is incredible but real, if you dont erase them from the original folder the game dont sense changes...... :88)

I dont comment this fact to TT yet....... may be he need to put some advetence into his download page.


@ Ducimus : be detected at 6km runing 1/3 , and at 4km running at slow....seems too much, do you dont think so ?

I think so a sub at silent running must to be near to undetected by pasive sonar, except if it has the bad luck to be pinged.

Even at slow it must to be near to undetected, far away from 500 or 1000m...... for that they start up those search patterns around the last positive detection, and launch hundred of DC as shots in the dark.

Running on diesels range must to be really big, but runing on electrics at very low prop turns they was so quiet.

I cant remember where i read this, web, book or anywhere, but i am wrong ?

[Hartmann]

Perhaps no is the correct topic ... sorry for One little and dumb question :88)

with the 16 km visibility mods the world bubble is bigger than in the stock game (8km)
could this affect the behaviour of the scorts detecting subs underwater ??

thanks . :88)

[Ducimus]

WOW.

What else is in there?



As for the distances i mentioned.. those were off the top of my head. Just guessing A bit much.. ya.. but my intention was to overcompensate for "normal" weather (which is usually bad. Besides that thoguh, i want a challenge ! :arrgh!:

[Redwine]

Perhaps no is the correct topic ... sorry for One little and dumb question :88)

with the 16 km visibility mods the world bubble is bigger than in the stock game (8km)
could this affect the behaviour of the scorts detecting subs underwater ??

thanks . :88)

Hi Hartmann...... como estas !! :up:

Really i dont know, there are lot of incredible surprises in this game.
But i dont think so. :hmm:




WOW.

What else is in there?



As for the distances i mentioned.. those were off the top of my head. Just guessing A bit much.. ya.. but my intention was to overcompensate for "normal" weather (which is usually bad. Besides that thoguh, i want a challenge ! :arrgh!:

Ok :up: i am not sure about them, for that i ask you your opinion.
Not sure what are real values, some historical vales was posted here in this topic at early pages, but they was for active sonar ..... now i will take a look.

With this good news thanks to TT, we can set now a speciphied sensivity for each sensor.

This fact opens new doors, we are now more free to adjust waves and nose factors.

Will be great if we can adjust good values so, when there a group of DDs hunting you their own noise plays against them, and they can be disturbed by them selves by their own noise.

Plus will be great to have a great reduction of sensor capabilities into a strom with waves factor.

Before, we can not play with these values, because we was hands linked due to the balance between dummys and ubber DDs.

Now we are able not only to asign a beam angle to a speciphied sensor, plus we can do it with sensivity.

Now if we increase the noise factor, dummy DDs do not become too dummy, because we can increase their sensibility without increase the ubber DDs sensibility, they not linked now.

:up:

[caspofungin]

bah! frustration.

i agree w/ ducimus, sensitivity doesn't seem to have too much effect (i'd already set sensitivity in ai_sensors to 0 for all hydrophones) -- hydrophones are dependent on noise factor and waves factor, like he said.

have you guys been able to change hydrophone max bearing and actually notice an effect in game? i set it to 10 in ai_sensors, but was still getting picked up off the escorts side.

this makes me wonder whether any changes in ai_sensors actually have an effect at all. is there some other file affecting sensors that we're missing?

[gouldjg]

@ TimeTraveller

You are a God in my book :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

@Redwine

You are an Angel with Gods message :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

I am going to bed and dreaming happy dreams for tommorow. Please pass my great appreciation over to TT.

I have a poem


Dumb DD always so lame

We are now going to give you, a working Brain

Uber DD soon to be Dead,

No More DC's dropping bang on my head

I know it is a little too early to be jumping for joy but I have to say guys, We all delivered the goods in our own special rights and deserve to pat ourselves on the back a little here.

Each and everyone of you have been a pleasure to work with during this stressfull time and I hope we all still see this through.

I just hope (though am confident) that we can now get a solid baseline.

With this new info, I am open to a group vote on what we should be doing.

Do we:-

See if we can keep varying Crews? (hmmmm seems very difficult to me or am I in tunnel vision)

Make a plan to each tackle a particular sensor in a logical order and then run a set of tests with onecrew rating?

[Ducimus]

Now you will be able to see, sensivity for Ubber DDs sensors are not set at zero, due to this fact the program do not take the value we adjust into Sim.cfg for 4 of those sensors wich remains ubber.

4 or 5 of them, those used by Buckley and Evarts are set at 0,05 and 0,06 and 0,07 :damn: ubber ubber sensors.




Now the pieces are falling into place.

1.) Post 2 pages back about replacing the hydrophone section in sim.cfg with indivdual entries. I underestimated how effecitve that could be if values in ai_sensor.dat were zero'ed.

2.) Sensitiviy rating in sim.cfg. I was playing with that, but under the false impressioin that the closer to 0 the more senstiive it becomes. (like noise factor).... But iUber's have a senstivyt of 5 through 7...... whooa... I went the wrong way with that scale.


So could it be all we have to do is ramp up the sensitiveity? assuming all other values left untouched, DD detection should increase upwards in scale should it not?

EDIT: there is this nagging voice thought that i should still play with wave and noise factors.

[Col7777]

Are we sure the CrewRatings are even being read?

I did a few tests with different ratings then I edited out the CrewRatings= lines out of the mission and they acted the same, in fact they were SLIGHTLY more aggressive with the line edited out, but that might have been my altering course and they did pick me up but I lost them again and finally escaped.

[gouldjg]

1.) Post 2 pages back about replacing the hydrophone section in sim.cfg with indivdual entries. I underestimated how effecitve that could be if values in ai_sensor.dat were zero'ed.

:yep: :yep: :yep: :yep: :yep: :yep:

We should (fingers crossed) be able to now create a extended Sim CFG. If this does not work for whatever reason (I cannot see why not), we just do it the hard way or compensate.

Now if only we had the formular that the dev team intended to implement. It would save huge ammount of trial and error.

[caspofungin]

i've done that already -- named entries in sim.cfg for each hydrophone and active sonar. for me, the effect is the same as deleting sim.cfg -- uber sensors.

[gouldjg]

Are we sure the CrewRatings are even being read?

I did a few tests with different ratings then I edited out the CrewRatings= lines out of the mission and they acted the same, in fact they were SLIGHTLY more aggressive with the line edited out, but that might have been my altering course and they did pick me up but I lost them again and finally escaped.

Col7777

I know I have been tunnel visioned into believeing each crew rating affects sensitivity but I would not guarentee I am right. Thats why I asked the question a bit earlier about if we should try and leave crew as they are and just tackle sensors.

I am no longer suprised about what is round the corner here.

I am no longer persuing my plan as this new stuff and the possibilites are so significant. I am ready to fall in line and listen to you guys who have tackled this in SH2 etc etc.

[Ducimus]

i've done that already -- named entries in sim.cfg for each hydrophone and active sonar. for me, the effect is the same as deleting sim.cfg -- uber sensors.

Sensitivty set to 0 in ai_sensor.dat? Is that the key here? Someone beat it in my head please :88)





How hard is it to change what DD's are equiped with?

Right about now, i just want to do a simple "find and replace" so i have a standard DD for all years, and then tweak with noise and wave. As long as all ships are the same sensitivity, i should get some good figures.

(im probably being impatient, i want to get back to playing :ping: )

EDIT:

Hmm i take that back, if the updated AI_sensor tweak file lets me edit the sensitivyty, ill make ll passive identical and then play with wave and noise.

Ppl get a baseline number for those factors , and i get to go back to playing . :D I personnnaly dont mind indentical performing escorts in my own modded game. Just as long as they make me work for my tonnage.

[gouldjg]

i've done that already -- named entries in sim.cfg for each hydrophone and active sonar. for me, the effect is the same as deleting sim.cfg -- uber sensors.

Is there any chance you could post that file so I can snoop into it a bit deeper. Could be a dead horse but then again :|\ secrets/extras may be found.

I am going to bed now cos my head is hurting trying to think what the formular could be. We need a mathmatician here.

[Reece]

Hi, I have posted twice here but no one has responded, has anyone had any success with the following problem:
Year mid 41 in campaign via SH3 Commander, have no problems with dd's sensing me unles I do something silly, if I close in on a convoy (silent running), can set off my torpedo's then get the crap out of there!! they find me most times at this point, then the main problem starts:
They drop dc's with pin point accuracy and you can never escape them, even after 2 hours of trying once! :down: they can turn almost as sharp as me at the same instance, have tried all tricks to shake them loose (going deep, run silent, stopping - that's bad!, change directions) but no go! :-? is this a sensor problem or something else? Just wondered if this issue has been addressed.
I don't know where you guys get the patience to keep going as you do but many thanks :up: and keep going! :D
Cheers

[Redwine]

See if we can keep varying Crews? (hmmmm seems very difficult to me or am I in tunnel vision)

Make a plan to each tackle a particular sensor in a logical order and then run a set of tests with onecrew rating?

I think so to tes on crew rating 1 and 4 is enough.
We need to do lot of test now, but no more night mare, now job and job is only needed.



Now the pieces are falling into place.

1.) Post 2 pages back about replacing the hydrophone section in sim.cfg with indivdual entries. I underestimated how effecitve that could be if values in ai_sensor.dat were zero'ed.

Discovered by CB into SH3Sim.act file, there is explained, the value of sensivity into Sim.cfg is only taked by the program when sensivity value into AI-Sensors.dat is set to zero.



So could it be all we have to do is ramp up the sensitiveity? assuming all other values left untouched, DD detection should increase upwards in scale should it not?

EDIT: there is this nagging voice thought that i should still play with wave and noise factors.

Agree we need to found a good noise and wave factors, wich reduce efectivity by background noise and waves.
Interesting if DDs disturbing them selves by own noise when hunting in a group, and be covered by background noise due to strom waves.



Are we sure the CrewRatings are even being read?.

I soupose must to be ..... must not to be the same a sensor with sensivity 0,05 with a dummy crew rating 1 than another operated by a expert crew rating 4....... wich is the atenuation factor, if any, i dont know, we need to many tests.



Sensitivty set to 0 in ai_sensor.dat? Is that the key here? Someone beat it in my head please :88)

Not enforced, i think so the best way is to adjust the sensivity from there, into AI-Sensors.dat.
Then we can adjust a speciphied value for each sensor.

Tha fact was, as we cannot to adjust sensivity zero into AI-Sensors.dat, the program was not reading our changes into 4 or 5 sensors corresponding to ubber DDs.




How hard is it to change what DD's are equiped with?

Easy and quick, just download the new tweak file done by TT, put it into the folder TweakFiles into Mini Tweaker instalation.
Open the file with the minitweaker and edit sensivity value for a determined sensor, if you let it as zero, the program will take the value from Sim.cfg.

[Redwine]

Hi, I have posted twice here but no one has responded, has anyone had any success with the following problem:
Year mid 41 in campaign via SH3 Commander, have no problems with dd's sensing me unles I do something silly, if I close in on a convoy (silent running), can set off my torpedo's then get the crap out of there!! they find me most times at this point, then the main problem starts:
They drop dc's with pin point accuracy and you can never escape them, even after 2 hours of trying once! :down: they can turn almost as sharp as me at the same instance, have tried all tricks to shake them loose (going deep, run silent, stopping - that's bad!, change directions) but no go! :-? is this a sensor problem or something else? Just wondered if this issue has been addressed.
I don't know where you guys get the patience to keep going as you do but many thanks :up: and keep going! :D
Cheers


So sorry Reece, please dont take bad....... the matter was we had not the solution for you...... some of us have the same problem than you, and this topic is for that :rotfl:

But we are more near to the sulution now :lol:

Here there are two main streams.......

People having dummy DDs, wich needs to be touched in the a@# to react and start hunt on you. :rotfl:
Case of CB in example.

People having Cancervero DDs (the hell gate guard dog with 3 heads) :rotfl:
Case of me and you, in example.


We are attempting to understand here how the files works to manage DDs capability.

We found two big obstacles :

The renamed files still works, i dont know why, but they do it, and the game do not react to our changes.

Solved.

The sensors sensivity was linked, we was able to manage it into Sim.cfg file, but only those who was unlocked from AI_Sensors.dat.

Solved. (few minuts ago :P )

TT had solved it giving us the file to manage them with Mini Tweaker program, and adjust a individual value for each sensor into AI_Sensors.dat.


Download TimeTraveller Mini Tweaker program, add the file i put the link in the previous page, and you are ready to manage sensors beam angles, sensors sensivity, sensors bearings, sensors depth.

Plus you can make changes into Sim.cfg, many more values there.

Plus you can edit decoys surface and life time, explanation for this in this topic, and if we be lucky, TT may be can give us the file to manage noise.

Stay here, i am sure good things will born from all this effort.

:up:

[caspofungin]

alright, i'm not sure what the hell was going on before, but anyway...

ai_sensors sensitivity set to 0, sim.cfg w/ named sensors as before, all hydrophones sens 0.05, detection time 1.

i thought i was getting uber sensors before, not sure why things have changed. now i get pinged at whatever is set the max asdic range is, and get picked up by hydrophones at whatever max hydrophone range is. the pinging i can evade by going deep and diving under the beam eg at relatively close range they can't ping me (min range set at 10, but "dead zone" depends on how deep you are).

current problem is hydrophones -- picked up at silent speed 1000s of m away. i think the next thing to change, as ducimus suggested, is the noise factor. if this sim.cfg individual entries things is true, we can give late war hydrophones a lower noise factor to simulate inc sensitivity. anyway, continuing to tweak...

nb -- by the way, did you guys notice that if playing w/ god's eye mode on, the circle around the escorts representing sensor ranges change w/ your ai_sensors tweaks? nice little touch, i thought.

[Redwine]

current problem is hydrophones -- picked up at silent speed 1000s of m away. i think the next thing to change, as ducimus suggested, is the noise factor. if this sim.cfg individual entries things is true, we can give late war hydrophones a lower noise factor to simulate inc sensitivity. anyway, continuing to tweak...

Agree but try to touch first you sensivity, 0,05 is too much, try 0,03 wich was default for non ubber DDs.
Then try noise factor 1 and wave factor 0.5

If it is too much try editing sensor beam angles, bearing and vertical.

Try and comment.

I had the inverse problem than you, i am undetectable at silent running, and near to the same at slow, i need to put 1/3 to be detectable, except if i had the bad luck to be pinged.

I like it...... and may be real.



nb -- by the way, did you guys notice that if playing w/ god's eye mode on, the circle around the escorts representing sensor ranges change w/ your ai_sensors tweaks? nice little touch, i thought.

Yes, those dash lines and the red/green sub silouette are very usefull to test.

[Ducimus]

Curretnly i have a noise factor of 0.4 and a wave factor of 0.2


Default values for both are:

Wave =0.5
noise= 1.0

In earlier testing i halved that amount
Wave =0.25
noise= 0.5

later still i made it

Wave =0.20
noise= 0.4


But this is without knowledge of sensitivyt ratings of the individual passive sonars. When i get home i plan to set them all to a sensitivity rating of 0.3 or 0.4

Then readjust

Wave =0.0
noise= 1.0

What you *should* ( i hope) experience then is normal behavior up until you get close to the DD (im gussing around 1200-2000 meters) at which distance he should be able to detect you no matter how slow or silent you go.

If you experience this, try it again to duplicate it. If you duplicate this behavior, then try this:

Wave =0.0
noise= 0.5

Im theorizing that you wont be detected at max hydrphone range, but you will be detected at twice the range to the DD as you were before. If not more.

So for example if at:

Wave =0.0
noise= 1.0

and the DD detects you at (for our examples sake) 2000 meters, plain as day, may as well be on the surface type of thing and hes fairly consitant about it.

and if you readjust to:

Wave =0.0
noise= 0.5

and the DD detects you at 4000 to 6000 meters, plain as day, may as well be on the surface... and hes consitant about it. THEN add in the wave factor.

Toss in a 0.13 or something and see what happends. THeoritically you should see a decrease in the range he sees you plain as day, and hopefully see some diminishing returns on his detection. In my minds eye im hoping noise factor is setting a hard limit on his detection, and wave factor as a soft limit on his detection that functions within his hard limit as defined by the noise factor. ..heh, i hope that makes sense.

[caspofungin]

playing around w/ sensitivity 1st

results -- changing sens doesn't affect max range of detection. rather, it affects how quickly it goes from a "tentative" detection to a firm contact ie how quickly the stealth meter goes from green to red. you're still detectable at the same range, it just takes longer for the escort to actually pinpoint you.

i think to play w/ range, we have to mess around w/ noise factor, as ducimus has so often suggested. i think, however, from my settings, that noise factor will have to be increased to decrease the max range at which escorts can hear you.

does anyone have any historical info re hydrophone ranges? i saw 1 source (posted on page 2) but nothing specific. also, would be great to get info on us active sonars.

[Ducimus]

Good news!

So far im getting the results i expected.



The setup:

Seas calm, no fog, no particpation, no nada, except winds at 5 knots from direction 0. Black swan escort starts about 10 to 11K due north of me. He travels south, i travel north at periscope depth, and we meet in the middle, bows on.

AI_sensor.dat:
All passive sonar Except AI_hydrophone, is set at 8500 meters, sensitivty set at 0. I am using value given in sim.cfg, (hopefully) of 0.03.

--------------------------------
Test Run number 1:

Sim.cfg
Detection time=1
Sensitivity=0.03
Height factor=0
Waves factor=0.0
Speed factor=15
Noise factor=1.0


Silent running:
Stealth meter went red on the average at about 1000 (guesstimate) meters from the DD. I had one detection but i think it was a fluke, i reran 3 more times and was never detected despite red meter.

Ahead slow:
Stealth meter went red on the average about 1000 to 1200 meters from the DD. Detection occured at around or within 500 meters from the DD (guesstimate)

1/3rd:
Stealth meter went red at around 1700 to 1800 meters. Detection occured at around 1200 meters.

Flank:
Meter went red at approximately 4500 meters, i did no further testing after this.
-----------------------------------------

Test run number 2:

Sim.cfg
Detection time=1
Sensitivity=0.03
Height factor=0
Waves factor=0.0
Speed factor=15
Noise factor=0.5


Silent running:
Stealth meter went red at about 1K, out of 2 or 3 attempts not once was i detected. Odd.

Ahead slow:
Stealth meter went red at approximatley 1900-2000 meters from the DD. Detection occured around 1300 -1500 meters.

1/3rd:
Stealth meter went red at approximately 2700 to 3000 meters.
Detection occured around 2400 to 2500 meters.


Flank:
Stealth meter went red at 6000 meters.



Well the ratio isnt exatly a perfect 2 to 1 on the noise filter adjustments, but it is scaling like i hoped it would. All i have to do now, drop the noise filter down a wee bit more, and then start adding the wave filter in little bits until i get somethign resembling desired results. Question now is, what exactly should i tune it to?

[Ducimus]

All i can say is WOW!

Ok so im fine tuning it now. Im not sure what my target is, im guessing that a DD should start to hear me at about 3000 meters at slow and 4000 meters at 1/3rd. Either that or 2000 meters slow and 3000 meters at 1/3rd. Not sure, take your pick..


But ... WOW...

Ok the default is 0.5 wave, and 1.0 noise.

Well heres some fine tuning..

I just ran two tests..
-------------------------------------------
First test:: 0.35 Noise, 0.0 wave factor

stealth meter goes red:

1/3rd, at about 3600 meters
slow, at about 2500-2600 meters.
---------------------------------------------------

Second test: 0.30 noise factor, 0.0 wave factor

stealth meters goes red:
1/3rd, at about 3900 meters
slow, at about 2800 meters.
-------------------------------


Ho'kay me thinks time to start adding in the wave factor. Considering the orginal was 0.5, i decide to start small, with 0.1

Ok, now comes the kick in the pants.
At 0.30 noise factor and 0.1 wave factor

at 1/3rd speed the steath meter didnt go red until i was like 500 meters in front of the DD,

at slow speed the meter didint go red until i was right next to him!

HOly smokes! and the default is 0.5?!

I think its time i cut 0.1 in half and star working with 0.05 and restart from there.. GOOD GREIF!

[gouldjg]

Good Morning all

Ducimus

Nice report, it provides great info into the noise and wave factor. I wonder what the difference would be if you did the exact same in storm conditions? Then we will get an understanding of how much deviation is occurring.

Methods that I am trying

I am doing exactly opposite as to you but only with the intention of giving different tests perspectives. No one can say that we never looked at all angles that way.

Hydrophones

I have presuming that all passisves were set to take their readings from the sim.cfg as I am not seeing any individual sensitivity ratings.

With this in mind and the fact I am already getting good results by tweaking the max ranges of each passive to react in game similar to real life (if all goes well of course).

I will unless of course better results become available, stick to this course of action for the time being.

I think we will find that the tweaking can be done from both perspectives and eventually one will need to tweak the other for fine tuning.

I am ready to drop my course of action the minute any other good results come in. What I mean by this, is, the fact that I am not bothered about who's theory is right or wrong, I am just going to go with popular opinion and what results pan out to be best.

It sounds like I am going against the grain but I am not :up: . Hope you all understand.


Actives

This is another subject all together. Because I feel that Redwine and Col7777 etc etc know how this type of behaviour should work and I do not, I am a little bit like a sheep following the flock. I have only a very rough Idea about the cones, arcs and depths added with aspect and noise. Actives are massive headache for me.

I just did a quick tweak this morning and dumbed down the high sensitivity numbers to 0.05 and around that figure. I tested this in 505. Boy oh boy, they still had a lock on me for most of the time, even when deep, but I distintly observed more randon DC behaviour. Sometimes they were late dropping and sometimes they were early but always fairly close by.

I have yet to see the uber turns but have not yet looked for that so am standing bye for Redwines tweaks into the late war DD's.

Like I say, I think others here will be by far better suited at playing with actives than I am.

Conclusion

I am just in the midst of setting my game up to run with RUB, SH3 commander, and then I am going to start knuckling into what I can do to help i.e. tests results etc.

Wondering

Is it me, or are the active sensors not affected by aspect. The waves factor setting, I can understand but noise ??????????.

I notice aspect is considered in other cfg file for supposed sub crew or is this cfg also DD crew and it maybe this file that crewratings get their differences from Hmmmmmmm.

[Ducimus]

I have come to the conclusion that wave factor is whats making the DD's freaking DEAF.

Get this, with a wave factor of 0.005 (far smaller then 0.1, or later 0.05), and a noise factor of 0.30

At 1/3rd the stealth meter doesnt go red until im like.. 1 type 7 stub length away from him, and i just cruised right on by. (crew rating 3 DD btw)

I did the same AT FLANK SPEED!!, same results.

To that end i opted to boost the sensitivty.

I tried 0.04 first to go along with the 0.005 wave factor and 0.30 noise factor. Same results. Later still i bosted it to 0.5. Same results.

To this end im going to do two things:

1.) adjust the wave factor the other direction, ill try 1. Maybe the numbers work the opposite direction.. *shrug*

failing that,

2.) zero out the wave factor and just fine tune the noise factor that makes the stealth meter go red at say, 1/3rd at 2000 meters, and slow 1000 meters or somewhere there abouts and call it quits.

As so far i am amazed at how much the wave factor makes the DD's deaf.

EDIT: there is one caveat to my testing, its from an optimal aspect angle (bows on), ill have to try it with him to my broadside at least once.

[Col7777]

Ducimus,

Early on when we first started these tests, just out of shear curiosity I doubled all the values in the sim.cfg and didn't notice much difference, I only did one test though.
I didn't mess with anything in the Sensors folder, I was just messing around to see what would happen.

[gouldjg]

Some sensor info now to be posted.

Some may be good some bad. I will keep posting as I find

British Surface Sonar
Pre 1945


Type 144
Type Hull mounted Range N/A In service 1942
The Type 144 was an active set designed for use with AS mortars such as Hedgehog. The transducers were carried in a streamlined gyrostabilised dome under the hull.


Type 144Q
Type Hull mounted Range N/A In service 1943
The Type 144Q was a modified Type 144. A 'Q' attachment was fixed to the transducer dome and angled down 15 degrees. This was to maintain contact with deep targets at short range.

It is this Q that worries me. I need to start looking in the american DD equipment files to ensure they are using the Q reerences as there equipment and in fact are not using type144 and the q stuff is accross the board on evry DD.


Type 147P
Type Hull mounted Range N/A In service 1943
The Type 147P was used for depth finding. ???????????

1) Bow mounted sonars are today mounted on most frigates and destroyers, since they are rather easy to incorporate and do not require any adaptations that might have adverse effects on the construction of the ship.

In general, all bow mounted sonars can be used in both, active and passive modes. They are usually installed in the bulb of the ship, but have the disadvantage of suffering to flow noise. This means that the faster the ship is moving the faster the water passed down the bow, and the bulb is more likely to cause the flow noise, which covers any external noises, making them harder to detect. High speed movements of the ship also create air bubbles in water surrounding the bow: air is especially bad then it bounces sound waves off.

Another problem connected with ship movement is that of machinery noise. Every ship is getting noisier the faster it moves, causing air bubbles to snap in the water, cavitation of propellers, louder engine noises etc. Therefore, slower speeds are advised for submarine hunting.

2) Hull mounter sonars are usually mounted just behind the bow, at about one third of the hull down from the bow. This position offers the advantage that there is nothing that creates air bubbles – like the bulb in which the bow mounted sonars are usually positioned. Yet, the disadvantage is that hull mounted sonars detoriate the ship’s hydrodynamic form, suffer from additional flow noise, and have a limited field of “view”. Specifically, under specific conditions, hull mounted sonars cannot detect submarines operating near the bottom of the sea. They can also not be used in both, the passive and active modes at once.

[Ducimus]

Ok for clarification i just discovered that Wave factor does indeed work in the opposite direction numberwise.


In otherwords, in the case with noise factor the closer you get to 0, the farther a DD can hear. So at a given speed, whereas at 0.5 a DD can hear you only so far, he can hear you alot farther at 0.3


NOT SO with wave factor. Zero im guessing 0 is OFF, but 0.005 is a really high wave factor effect.


Note this:

at 0.30 noise factor and 0.0 wave factor:

1/3rd speed, the stealth meters goes red at around 3900 meters
SLow speed, it goes red at about 2800 meters.


Now,...AT:
at 0.30 noise factor and 0.9 wave factor

1/3rd speed goes red at about 2300 meters
slow goes red at about 1600 meters.

NOw im getting somewhere! :rock:


EDIT:

err well at least i think it works the opposite direction... maybe its late (and im really hungry lol) but im getting varried results now,

Maybe my memories trashed and i need to reboot. New plan of attack. Put wavefactor back at default (0.5) and start raising noise factor back up until i get detection within the range that i want it.

[gouldjg]

If you read my previous thread, it may or may not help shed some light on the noise factor and possible open up more clues as to the actual formula or devs team thinking.

[gouldjg]

With regards to active sonar,

Does anyone think it might be worth adding the aspect line from the sensor.cfg to the sim cfg.

I know there already might be a link so I can see no harm in trying.

I just do not know if the acives in the current game are affected by aspect of sub.

[Ducimus]

Its late, right now im not really capable of seeing much further then the end of my nose.

Gonna wrap this up for tonight.

RIght now im of the opinion, for passive sonar were looking at one of the following:

A low noise factor / a higher wave factor

a higher wave factor / a lower noise factor

low noise factor / 0 wave factor.

As so far my best results have been the following:

.4 Noise / .5 wave

1/3rd goes red at 2700 meters
slow goes red at 1800 meters
silent goes red at 700ish.

0.5 noise / 0.5 wave
1/3rd goes red at 2300 meters
slow goes red at 1500 meters
silent goes red at ..err well i got detected somewhere inside 1K

0.5 noise / 0.4 wave
1/3rd goes red at 2000 meters (give or take a couple hundred)
slow goes red at 1500 meters
SS, he has to step near you. I got detected, if i had gone to all stop i probably wouldnt have.

Of course this begs two questions:

1.) should you be detectable with passive sonar at silent speed? Most will probably answer with no, and itend to agree to a point.

2.) Just how much will wave factor effect DD detection under normal gameing conditions, since most of the time the weather is rotton?


Personnlay i think in My own game, im going to zero out the wave factor, for three reasons.

1.) I wasnt detected at silent speed in my tests.
2.) its easier to adjust DD detection to a given range
3.) it removes a random variable (hopefully)

Now for any Offical mod, im not sure what stance people want to take. But for tonight i think im gonna call it a night. Although im gonna run one more test, i think the optimal noise filter with out the wave factor resides somwehre in between 0.5 and 0.6 i think.

[Kaleunt]

In all your speculations you are all forgotting an inportant third factor.,i.e
The surface (m²) of the detected object. This parameter play an important
role in the detection formula.

[Ducimus]

Well im about ready to give up.

What the hell is surface (m squared?)

My goal is simply to widen the area in which DD's can detect you through passive sonar. Stock they simply just dont do the job. You have to literally go out of your way to get their attention.

Maybe i should s tick with the orgianal ratio of 1 noise factor and 0.5 wave factor but scale it back.

What im REALLY wondering is, what direction do we want the wave factor to go? My worry is pull it too far in one direction and will still have deaf escorts.

This much i know:

Noise factor: 0 is the loudest. If you want a escort to hear a dolphin fart in the indian ocean from biscay bay... zero this out. 1 is the default. Why 1 i dunno.

Wave factor: 0 is off but 0.005 is REALLY low. In otherwords, if you want to decrease the distance at which a DD can detect you, enter a really small decimal here. If you want to increas the distance a DD can detect you, enter a larger decimal. Enter a 1 and he can pick you up pretty quickly.


Thats all fine and good, but what the hell is it doing?

[Redwine]

What you *should* ( i hope) experience then is normal behavior up until you get close to the DD (im gussing around 1200-2000 meters) at which distance he should be able to detect you no matter how slow or silent you go.

but with active sonar not pasive...... or i am wrong ?

About noise factor, will be great if we can found a value so when they are 3 or more Dds, the noise they make plays against them.

About wave factor i think so it must to be important, in example look at the Bisckmark mission, with that sorm their pasive sensors must to benear to deaf.

Are you sure the wave factor is a inverse value ? as lower is more effective ?


Ducimus,

Early on when we first started these tests, just out of shear curiosity I doubled all the values in the sim.cfg and didn't notice much difference, I only did one test though.
I didn't mess with anything in the Sensors folder, I was just messing around to see what would happen.

sorry Cool but i cant uderstand you well to help, but if i dont understand bad, remember we had two problems during tests, the renamed back-up files, and the non zeroed sensors into AI_Sensors.dat file, this both dont let the game take on our changes.

[Kaleunt]

The surface (m²) of the detected object is the parameter called
"minsurface" in the AI_sensor.dat file, "surface" in the sensor.dat file and
EnemySurfaceFactor in the sim.cfg. It is well precised in the SH3sim.act file that if this value is set to "0" in the AI_sensors.dat or Sensor.dat files
then the value from Sim.cfg file is taken (the EnemySurfaceFactor value
to be precise). This parameter works in conjonction with the sensitivity and range parameters.So i think that in all your test you are missing something if you don't take this factor in count.

[CB..]

pehaps the trick might be to co-ordinate the sensors in what might on paper seem to be a highly un "realistic" (gawd i hate realism debates)
fashion---in order to create flexible gameplay--

trouble is with all this we are in the end playing a game---if it is concretely possible to creep into a convoy at silent running torp a few ships then creep out again-- and we can set this up as 90 - 100% reliable--then things could get really dull gameplay wise--

personally what i'm considering is to nerf the radar down to around 6,000 metres--(remebering that Erich Topp interview where he said he lost a DD with radar in the fog at a lesser distance than this)

setting the max distance for the hydrophone at about the same distance

then punching a huge hole in the hydrophones via the min distance by limiting it to perhaps 1500 metres minimum distance

filling that hole with the sonar set to go from around 1300 metres max distance to about 100 metres min distance

then sitting back and see-ing how the AI trys to deal with this set up--

from a pure gameplay point of view---i want to be detected (i don't care if i get detected every single time) as long as i have a reasonable chance of escaping detection again and can if i'm clever get thru to the target ship and make the kill at least 50% of the time

adding in the noise incrementally to fuzzy up the boudaries for the sensors and using the waves factor to create some tactical advantages to attacking in choppy conditions--

if the sensor edits can now be relied on to consistently stick in game then lots of options become simple matters of adjusting range etc--
the temptation might be to try to get TOO fancy about it--

[Redwine]

Of course this begs two questions:

1.) should you be detectable with passive sonar at silent speed? Most will probably answer with no, and itend to agree to a point.

2.) Just how much will wave factor effect DD detection under normal gameing conditions, since most of the time the weather is rotton?


Personnlay i think in My own game, im going to zero out the wave factor, for three reasons.

1.) I wasnt detected at silent speed in my tests.
2.) its easier to adjust DD detection to a given range
3.) it removes a random variable (hopefully)



I think so, at silent running and slow, you must to be ner to undetectable if you dont have the bad luck to be pinged.

It is interested, because force you to perform a plnified attack as in real life. And it is had to put ypur sub in a good attack position at silent or slow speeds.

Then if you move at standar speed, and detected, you will be enforced to go silento or slow, but they will start up a search pattern around yur last position.

I note, you cant scape of these seach patterns at silent speed, they star the seach patterns about at last detection place, and star moving the pattern along your calculated last direction, they move this patterns at determined speed, at silent running, they definitivelly arrive over you.

At slow too.

It means they move the patern at about between 3 and 5 knots, wich corresponding to you silent, slow and even 1/3 speeds.

I am clear detected at 1/3, but i still green at slow, i neeed to adjust a dirty green in slow speed, it is :

silent speed(no jobs, reloads or repairs) : green
slow speed : dirty green
1/3 : red

Slow speed is at limit needed to sacpe of their serch pattern speed, you must to use the somer to move them at your back always and scape.

Normally i use the map, and attempt contatly to have the red lines at back, and when they pass over me, if it is an alone DDs, i move flank under him, and follow him turning 90*, when he make the next pass he dot found me at spected place.

If you let the little sub become red with silent or slow, you never scape from the search pattern speed, they always turning and turning moving along a line over you.

This is one reason of the pinpoint attacks.

We need to overpass that seach pattern speed to sacpe, it do not means a constant speed, instead an average speed, when on their seach beams, we need silent running and be undetected, and when in the shadow zones of their sensors, we nedd to be able to move fast, finally in average we nedd to move at almost 4 or 5 knots to scape from pinpoint attacks.

[HEMISENT]

Ducimus
Following your line of thought on the noise factor/wave factor. This may be a partial reason why I experience mostly dumb DD behavior. I have been using the Big Wave mod(1.5x & 2x) since it came out. Also been playing with TT's inspector to play with waves. Also recently been adjusting the waves amplitude and waves attenuation in sim.cfg.
Just a thought.

Guys all your work is greatly appreciated. Please keep it up.

[Reece]

A little late in responding Red, but thanks for the 'heads up' :up:
It is rather confusing how so many settings seem to effect each other, would be great if the devs gave us a hint at how it's all put together!! :yep: but somehow I doubt that, will keep my eyes peeled to this thread to the end, very qurious to how this pans out. :D
Thanks all.

[Redwine]

Ducimus
Following your line of thought on the noise factor/wave factor. This may be a partial reason why I experience mostly dumb DD behavior. I have been using the Big Wave mod(1.5x & 2x) since it came out. Also been playing with TT's inspector to play with waves. Also recently been adjusting the waves amplitude and waves attenuation in sim.cfg.
Just a thought.

Guys all your work is greatly appreciated. Please keep it up.

Good point, may be wave magnifivation from Timetraveller, and wave amplitude and atenuation from CB make diferences in behavior on many of us. :up:


A little late in responding Red, but thanks for the 'heads up' :up:
It is rather confusing how so many settings seem to effect each other, would be great if the devs gave us a hint at how it's all put together!! :yep: but somehow I doubt that, will keep my eyes peeled to this thread to the end, very qurious to how this pans out. :D
Thanks all.

It is nothing, stay here, make your test and comment your opinion......


In all your speculations you are all forgotting an inportant third factor.,i.e
The surface (m²) of the detected object. This parameter play an important
role in the detection formula.

I think so it is taked in account by the sim, with Enemy Surface Factor, and you are right, we asume the surface is the correct and we are not playing with this value. Another help in tweak. :up:



Well im about ready to give up.

What the hell is surface (m squared?)

Wave factor: 0 is off but 0.005 is REALLY low. In otherwords, if you want to decrease the distance at which a DD can detect you, enter a really small decimal here. If you want to increas the distance a DD can detect you, enter a larger decimal. Enter a 1 and he can pick you up pretty quickly.


Thats all fine and good, but what the hell is it doing?


I soupose it is the surface you show to the sonar beam, not present in pasive sonar, but present in sight, radar and active sonar.

I think so it introduce a some level of atenuation in detection, is not the same if you are pinged from side, than if you are pinged from front. You dont show the same area or surface to the ping beam.


About the waves....... you are right, a samaller value reduce detection, at point to make DDs near to deaf.

Wave factor has a very big influence on detection, i can believe how much it reduce or increase the DDs capability.

I am trying with 0.8 right now, and they are very deadly another time.

Be ware with WAVE FACTOR

Thanks for trick. :up:

[timetraveller]

Guys,

#1===========================
I made a tweak file for the sensor "noise" values in Sensors.sim, effecting the player sub.

www.delraydepot.com/tt/Sensors_sim.zip

Unzip and save file to the Mini Tweaker's \TweakFiles folder.

I don't know what each of the sensors are, so I've named then Sensor#1, Sensor#2, etc.

Other stuff is in there too, like Snorkel, etc.

#2===========================

I think I've uncovered the sensitivity value in AI_Sensors.dat too.

www.delraydepot.com/tt/AI_Sensors_dat.zip

Unzip and save file to the Mini Tweaker's \TweakFiles folder.

I've added both to the Mini Tweaker's TweakFiles package.

Hope this helps.

TT

..

[Col7777]

I just tried something again for the heck of it, I copied and pasted the entire entries from the stock Sensor file in to the stock Sim.cfg file.

I ran a test mission and I got a message of "Ship spotted," I was in external camera view and there was no ships in sight, then after a good few minutes I got a sound contact, again no ships in sight.
After about 6-10 minutes I got smoke on the horizon.
When I got close at peri depth and running silent my stealth meter only went red as the DD passed me by at around 300mts then it turned green again after he passed.
To cut the story short I escaped unharmed, so are these Sensor and Sim things for the player sub, I mean why did I get ship spotted and the sound contact so early?

I removed the old stock sensor file too btw.

[CB..]

:D i can see i am liable to end up being the "lone voice in the wildneress" again on the sensor edits-- but it's allways good to have an alternative point of view on gameplay--so here goes i'll hold my ground--
:up:

i set my maximum hydrophone distances to stock--and set the minimum hydrophone distances to 1000 metres---

(same wierd set of cfg entrys as before)

found a convoy (again in full career mode campaign play)

and got into position ahead of it--- submerged-at silent- at around 7000 metres the green sub went orange---at around 4000 metres it went red--"we have been etc etc" and it stayed full on red ALL THE TIME---

two DD's came racing out from the head of the convoy to investigate
made numerous close DC runs -- but they were obviouslya little confused by their sensor readings-- the attacking DD lost any hydrophone contact at 1000 metres and was relying on the more distant DD's for up-dates--

and even tho the little red sub remain full on red i was able to shake them--i headed gradually into the convoy and was constantly being harried and DC'd by escorts and constantly being able to shake them again--

here's something very VERY good i can say with some certainty--the AI is very VERY clever indeed---when given something to actually think about --it does actually think about it--it's not a complete slave to it's sensor readings ---

i was really pleased to see that as the attacking DD came close- beacuse it lost hydrophone contact with me at such a long range --it instead of making one DC drop -- it made three DC drops-- along the line of it's last hydrophone contact--- and it didn't react to any turns i made during it's final run (which takes care of that issue or offers some thing to think about at least)

it was fascinating to watch the DD's varying their DC drops to try to compensate for the lack of precise information on my exact position--

not just the one DC drop per run--as is usual

three entirely seperate drops on the same run---

and this wasn't predictable --one DD would consider that it had a good enough contact to drop his full load in one go--another would be more tentative and spread his load over two or three drops during the same run--a good three or four seconds passing between each seperate drop--

another would break of at the last second and not make a drop at all--

all the time the DD's were (in gameplay terms at least) exhibiting very human confusion as to which DD's sensor readings were the most accurate-- the problem being for them that the more distant DD's had better sensor contact that the closer ones--

sometimes the distant ones would allmost appear to get fed up and charge in to make a attack of their own---

i was caught well and truly napping by this tactic- i wacthed a corvette line up for it's dc run then steam right over head without dropping--- so i didn't maneuver thinking i was safe for the moment--i didn't spot the Clemson hurtling in at 24 knots ahead of me from distance -- and he did make a dangerous DC drop-- this dance kept up for a good hour or so---totally unpredictable -- even using the external camera i wasn't able to tell which DD i should be the most worried about--yet they were still working as a team --they had no choice- and even tho they were struggling a lot with the blind spot in their hydrophones- their tactics were not unintelliegnt - challenging and to my satisfaction allmost entirely HUMAN LOL!!!

meaning i was having to do some GENUINE thinking of my own ,not just roleplaying being uber commander of the month lol--all in all the most entertaining and human encounter with a set of convoy escorts i've ever had in a sub sim--

my main concern as this progresed was that i wouldn't be able to escape completely from the encounter---the long distance semi uber hydrophone becoming another catch 22--but i needn't have worried--
because the DD's have their traditional blind spot directly behind them -as the convoy got further away this blind spot natural gets larger and larger--
untill quite naturally even tho i had two clemsons and a corvette coming and going making dc runs at close range -- the little red sub went back to green and stayed that way--- and the DD's one by one left the attack and went back to the convoy ( the distant DD's whoose hydrophone contacts were providing the information for the attacks now being far enought away for me to comfortably find their blind spot ( and the retresting DD's steaming at flank away from me enabled me to place myself in their blind spot as their hydrophones came on line at disatnce--

problems--?
one--no pinging--dunno why--

thoughts on this--

no pinging-- at all-- either the DD hydrophones CAN DETECT DEPTH-- pretty disasterous stuff ---or the games use of the pinging sound and "enemy is pinging us" warning is slightly unreliable--how else could they have known my depth--( and they did know it)

on the gameplay side--and IMO- in normal campaign gameplay--
you steam out of port-- and can spend 3 or 4 hours even at maximum time excelleration finding and getting into position on a convoy--

another hour or even two conducting the attack--(at the least)
and another hour or so getting back to port

so it's quite often a major investment of time to conduct a career patrol--- do we really want to spend all that time and not have a bit of fun with the DD's?

what ever edits we make we need to remember that the events were testing for - the peformance of the DD's et al are normally going to be experienced by the average player in the context of their campaign
careers--- i prefer to get detected id don't care if it's "arcade" ive just spent four hours finding this dang convoy and it had better be worth the effort gameplay wise- lol!!

[Redwine]

Time Traveller

You rocks !!! :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:


Sensor 1, Sensor 2....... are Bold 1 type, Bold 2 type......

Great if you can add a line to set Bold_counter into Bold_launcher.
It is the bold quantity onboard.

:up: :up:

[Col7777]

That sounds more like it CB, can you post both your Sim & Sensor files please, I like the sound of all that. :up:

[CB..]

That sounds more like it CB, can you post both your Sim & Sensor files please, I like the sound of all that. :up:

cheers Col :up:

haven't got access to my site at the moment-- lost my password for the site and the guy who i rent the space from is out of contact at the moment

the entire set up is just

increasing the minimum ranges for all the hydrophones (including the generic A_hydrophone) to 1000

(all other AI_sensors.dat entrys as stock)

and this sim.cfg


[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.4 ;[0,1]
Waves attenuation=0.02 ;>=0

[AI Cannons]
Max error angle=20 ;[deg]
Max fire range=5000 ;[m]
Max fire wait=22 ;[s]

[AI AA guns]
Max error angle=5 ;[deg]
Max fire range=1000 ;[m]
Max fire wait=7 ;[s]

[AI detection]
Lost contact time=6 ;[min]

[Visual]
Detection time=0.5 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1) at (sensitivity * max range) we have a double detection time.
Fog factor=0.3 ;[>=0]
Light factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=400 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]

[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=3.0 ;[m2]

[Hydrophone]
range factor=1 ;[>=0]
fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
light factor=0 ;[>=0]
waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.50 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=10 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=2

[Redwine]

:D i can see i am liable to end up being the "lone voice in the wildneress" again on the sensor edits-- but it's allways good to have an alternative point of view on gameplay--so here goes i'll hold my ground--
:up:

Why alone voice ? all we are together in this !! :up: :up:



and got into position ahead of it--- submerged-at silent- at around 7000 metres the green sub went orange---at around 4000 metres it went red--"we have been etc etc" and it stayed full on red ALL THE TIME---


you really have ubber sensors now !!! thats too much !


i was caught well and truly napping by this tactic- i wacthed a corvette line up for it's dc run then steam right over head without dropping--- so i didn't maneuver thinking i was safe for the moment--i didn't spot the Clemson hurtling in at 24 knots ahead of me from distance -- and he did make a dangerous DC drop-- this dance kept up for a good hour or so---totally unpredictable -- even using the external camera i wasn't able to tell which DD i should be the most worried about--yet they were still working as a team --they had no choice- and even tho they were struggling a lot with the blind spot in their hydrophones- their tactics were not unintelliegnt - challenging and to my satisfaction allmost entirely HUMAN LOL!!!

Good, that unpredictable behavior looks so good.
Be ware save files.


problems--?
one--no pinging--dunno why--

thoughts on this--

no pinging-- at all-- either the DD hydrophones CAN DETECT DEPTH-- pretty disasterous stuff ---or the games use of the pinging sound and "enemy is pinging us" warning is slightly unreliable--how else could they have known my depth--( and they did know it)

May be you have ubber pasive sensors, try editing beam angles, it can force them to use active one at final run.

May be them do not know your depth and estimate your position, then launch a random depth a set of depth charges ..... may be ?
Remember ping do not sound in external view, you must to stay inside the sub to hear it.




so it's quite often a major investment of time to conduct a career patrol--- do we really want to spend all that time and not have a bit of fun with the DD's?

what ever edits we make we need to remember that the events were testing for - the peformance of the DD's et al are normally going to be experienced by the average player in the context of their campaign
careers--- i prefer to get detected id don't care if it's "arcade" ive just spent four hours finding this dang convoy and it had better be worth the effort gameplay wise- lol!!

behavior will be a final part of this investigation, every one will preffers a diferent behavior, i really love that behavior reached in SH2 with your DES5, where i was under attack during 30 hours, but other friend hates it......

:up: :up: :up:

[CB..]

and got into position ahead of it--- submerged-at silent- at around 7000 metres the green sub went orange---at around 4000 metres it went red--"we have been etc etc" and it stayed full on red ALL THE TIME---


you really have ubber sensors now !!! thats too much !



all good stuff thanks Red :up: :yep:

here's my point tho on the little red sub indicator-- it did remain at full red all the time BUT i was able to shake the DD's so in this scenario it's not an indication of what's actually going on gameplay wise


i think on the passive sensors and the lack of pinging yup the passives are ubered BUT they have a massive hole in that the minimum distance is 1000 metres --if the information from the more distant DD's is enough for them to accurately guess my depth --then some minor introduction of noise should get them using the sonar - but it has to asked wether the hydrophones can in fact detect depth in the game--or are the pinging effects and warning "unreliable" (i did keep checking from the command room for pinging)

i was allso curious about the short period of orange on the sub meter at the start of the encounter---i was wondering if the generic AI_Hydrophones sensor entrys might actually be a less sensitive sensor than the named hydrophones and and is used in conjuction with the named hydrophones-- if so this would allow for the accurate creation of a "fuzzy" area out side the range of the ubered hydrophones---if so i could reduce- below stock- the maximum range of the named hydrophones and give the hydrophones a fuzzy less sensitive area out side that zone--

were at least all having some fun with this stuff at last!! :yep:

[Redwine]

i was allso curious about the short period of orange on the sub meter at the start of the encounter---i was wondering if the generic AI_Hydrophones sensor entrys might actually be a less sensitive sensor than the named hydrophones and and is used in conjuction with the named hydrophones-- if so this would allow for the accurate creation of a "fuzzy" area out side the range of the ubered hydrophones---if so i could reduce- below stock- the maximum range of the named hydrophones and give the hydrophones a fuzzy less sensitive area out side that zone--

were at least all having some fun with this stuff at last!! :yep:


Interesting point........ :hmm:
We made that question before, why is the Hydrophones, if there is another speciphied sensors....... :hmm:

[CB..]

Interesting point........ :hmm:
We made that question before, why is the Hydrophones, if there is another speciphied sensors....... :hmm:

seems logical as the AI_hydrophone sensor has a longer maximum range than the named ones -- i have it set to 8000 metres (sorry Col forgot to say) and the green sub indictator went orange OUTSIDE the set max range for the named sensors BUT INSIDE the set max range for the AI_Hydrophone sensor :hmm:
so if it is used AT THE SAME TIME as the named sensors then this would explain somethings AND can be exploited to some very use full effects :up:

[Col7777]

CB,

Thanks mate, I copied and pasted, remembering to back-up the original. :)

This sounds exciting now, can I ask also, IF you make any tweaks to rectify some of your concerns mentioned above, do please post them, great work pal. :up:

[CB..]

CB,

Thanks mate, I copied and pasted, remembering to back-up the original. :)

This sounds exciting now, can I ask also, IF you make any tweaks to rectify some of your concerns mentioned above, do please post them, great work pal. :up:

Willdo Col!!
:yep: :up:

[timetraveller]

Redwine & Guys,

I updated the tweak file to include the bolds_count. Same file - you'll need to go get it again.

For the Mini Tweaker-

www.delraydepot.com/tt/Sensors_sim.zip

Hope this helps.

TT

[Redwine]

Redwine & Guys,

I updated the tweak file to include the bolds_count. Same file - you'll need to go get it again.

For the Mini Tweaker-

www.delraydepot.com/tt/Sensors_sim.zip

Hope this helps.

TT

What can i say ! ...... thousand of thanks TT :up: :up:

[gouldjg]

Well guys

I am glad we are all getting good results all be it varying but good :up: .

I have been kind of happy for the time being with My Hydrophone settings being a lot higher than defaults.

Every Hydrophone seems to be performing with much improvement upto now. No uber silent running detections and no ability to run past one third when within 2-3000 mtres.

I am hoping that in rough weather or higher waves, these ingame ranges of about 6000 start to deterioate in a logical order due to me leaving the sim.cfg alone.


I have left this for the moment untill I get my head on for the fine tuning part.

Anyway Going back onto actives

I have just had the most rewarding 505 mission ever ever.

Basically all I have done is average the sensitivity for all sensors in between 0.045 upto 0.06 in a ligical order from earliest = lowest and latest = highest.

As well as this I have set min ranges to between 250 mtres to 350 mtres.

And the bearing max of the later DDs to 80


Results Noticed =

If they have noticed you with their new hydrophones, and this is very critical bacuse as soon as you start your engine even at 1 or 2 knots, the indicator starts to change. Silent running gives me some breathing spoace.

Anyway

I was pinged because I needed to test if my min sonar tweaks worked. I let him come on my tail and kept flicking f12 and f2 so I could gage the range at which the pinging stopped.

The DD stops pinging me over the last 80mtrs, so even though min range is set at 350 something also nerfs that. This is why I think like I do with hydrophone ranges.

Cutting a potential long and boring story short, The DC's were close but not bang on unless I persisted in doing a total stupid staright run and then they was bang on.

The hedgehogs are close but it depends on angle of DD when he fires.

I managed to escape but only because there was one and I was constantly turning into him so he loses contact quicker and quicker.

It was fantastic compared to any other time I have tested u505 and trust me when I say I have tested the DD in that mission 100000000 times when doing Hollywood mods. Thats why I could never set equipment to break easy as the DD always had the advantage of not losing me on the last 150 mtrs.

This is by far not finnished because I am hoping Redwine might come up with a better set of active sensors.

p.s. I added aspect to the sim.cfg sonar, Just copied it form sensor. Do not know if it does anything but no harm occured.


Man I feel like this is a better game already. Lots more testing to do.

I am really keen on the idea of better decoys and a small increase in their ability to throw a DD off

P.S

I feel that I can maybe up the detection time on actives so it is touch and go when both I and the DD are turning into each other.

[Ducimus]

Well i feel im becoming a dog chasing it's tail.

Before i went to bed last night (man i'd better brew some more coffee this morning.. ughhh)

I ran a few more tests.


0.5 noise / 0.5 wave

1/3rd speed = red at 2300 I then switched to slow, and went back to green.

Slow = red at 1500, i thien switiched to silent and it went green, but was detected when the DD got next to me.


0.4 noise / 0.5 wave

1/3rd = red at 2700 meters, went to slow, sub went green.

slow = red at 1800 meters. switched to silent , sub went green.

silent = red at 700 meters,


0.5 noise / 0.4 wave

1/3rd speed = red at 2000 meters, going to slow meter goes green.

slow = red at 1500 meters, going to silent went green

silent = Err no results for this, either i was detected or didnt write it down.



So now comes the chassing the tail part:

0.5 noise / 0.3 wave
(which is NOT FAR from being 0.5 noise 0.25 wave, where i was ORIGNALLY.!! BAH!)

1/3rd speed = red at 1600 meters
slow = red at 1200 meters
Silent = i didnt write it down, my guess is he went red on me as he got within 500 -700 metes which seemed to be the norm throughout all my testing.





So the problem with all of this :

1.) my depth might be skewing things.

2.) if my depth is not skewing things, then were at a new problem. Enlarge the detection radius and silennt running doesnt seem to work very well. Shrink the radius so silent runing works, but now the detection radius is so small, were back to square one. To this end i think CB is onto something with imposing a rather large hole in the min distance of passive sonar. This im guesisng would allow us to raise the detection radius and not break silent running.


As an aisde:

0.55 noise factor / 0.0 wave factor

1/3rd = red at 2700
slow = red at 1600
silent = red at 500.

I do recall in previous tests that despite a red meter, i was undetected. i could experiment more with this if anyone wants.

EDIT:

Have we arrived to an agreement as to what ranges we should be detected at at which engine settings?

IE:

1/3rd , should be detected how far away? 2000? 3000? less?

slow should be detected how far away?1000? 1500? more? less?

Silent running .. well its supposed to be silent. :88)

Despite zeroing in on a goal detection range, im worried that the wave factor will produce widley varied results in acutal play. SImply because i dont know if we want more or less wave factor in play. Crank it up and despite a low noise factor we'll still have deaf DD's under ideal sonar conditions. What is this going to do under storm conditions? Writing that it sounds like i have to rewind, and find a low noise factor, high wave factor setting.

[Redwine]

@ gouldjg :

Agree with you it is incredible how the game changes behavior easy now.....

Another good mission to test is Royal Flush from "Ubbermom" Avon Lady. There are two crew rating 4 and one crewrating 3 DDs.

There is a value which has a lot of influence in detection, it is wave factor, dont forget to play with this value, a little change make a big change in the game.

Decoys can be a help to shake a hard DD, we have how to tweak them easy now.

And the good thing on decoys, is they are a double edge knife, if you use them against an alone DD, when it passes over you, and you ener into its shadow sensor zone..... good, but if there are more DDs around there, the decoy can call them on you :know:

Do you added aspect factor into Sim.cfg acives ?
May be it is considered by surface factor, but how do you do it ?

:up:

[Col7777]

I just played a test mission using CB's CFG, best bit of fun for ages.
Thing is I have a complaint CB, are trying to kill me, I had to pause to get a stiff drink, my nerves a shattered? :-j

Seriously though it was as you described CB, my stealth meter went from orange to red then 2 DD's made a charge and they hounded the life out of me.
I tried this and that but in the end I came a cropper, I may not be a good as you so I may need a minor tweak to give me a chance, but I like it very much. :up:

[HEMISENT]

CB.
Regarding your latest settings one question about Escort CrewRatings= Are they set to random(stock) or all set equal or are you omitting them with ;

I'll change the wave settings back to yours and go from there
Plugging in right now to see what happens.

[Ducimus]

Well i think i found a setting l like, but the freakign misssion editor's ticking me off.

ANyway.
0.4 noise / 0.5 wave
1/3rd = red at 2700 -2800 meters
slow = red at 1800-1900 meters
slient = red at around 800-900 meters
1 or 1.5 knots under silent running =t red around 500 meters.

Cut us a min sonar distance hole and i think it might be good.
EDIT:
Nevermind, got mission to work.

[Redwine]

@ CB :

I tested your Sim.cfg lines, in Royal Flush mission, and they blast me out of the water with a cirurgical precision, even at silent runing and reducing down to 2 knts. :hmm:
(no decoys launched for test)

The matter is i have limited hydrophones and sonar beams. :hmm:

Do you still using crew rating removed ?
If not, you are playing very hard now, correct ?

:up:

[gouldjg]

@ gouldjg :

Agree with you it is incredible how the game changes behavior easy now.....

Another good mission to test is Royal Flush from "Ubbermom" LadyMC. There are two crew rating 4 and one crewrating 3 DDs.

There is a value which has a lot of influence in detection, it is wave factor, dont forget to play with this value, a little change make a big change in the game.

Decoys can be a help to shake a hard DD, we have how to tweak them easy now.

And the good thing on decoys, is they are a double edge knife, if you use them against an alone DD, when it passes over you, and you ener into its shadow sensor zone..... good, but if there are more DDs around there, the decoy can call them on you :know:

Do you added aspect factor into Sim.cfg acives ?
May be it is considered by surface factor, but how do you do it ?

:up:

I take it you are also getting a drastic improvement of control on Active DD's.

I have yet to play with the waves etc but as soon as I start testing in rough weather, I am sure I may need to do tiny little adjustments here and there for balance.

With regards to aspect,

Either the sim.cfg shares some issues with the sensors cfg i.e. col777 mentioned the possibility earlier, or the dev team never applied aspect to DD sensor's.

My gut feeling is that there may be a relationship between the 2 files.

My action was to copy the line from sensors.cfg sonar and then paste it into sim.cfg sonar.

The value is the same but soon I will put a ridiculous number in its place and see if anything becomes apparrent.

If no change, then I am at the suspicion that the two files are shared for certain things, both for sub and for ship.

I just cannot see why the devs would put aspect into a hardly used sub sensor and then not apply it to a DD sensor which is one of the main things used in the game. :hmm: :hmm:

All in all, I am having a buzzing time in 505 jsut testing. As soon as I get the finer tuning done, I am going to start combining it all with a new damage model.

80 degree max bearing on actives seems to be just right for me though I may consider slightly nerfing the arc for the hydrophone at some point.

As far as DC's go,

I think it may be best to tweak the DC files for each year in game. It is simple to do by just making copies and storing untill needed in campaign.


Redwine,

How are you getting your desired Hydrophone ranges?

Are you going back to mixed ai crew or sticking with one type?

I like the idea about decoys and yes your right. Launching these at the wrong times is a very bad thing. Thats why some players thought DD was uber uber uber instead of just uber droppers. I have noticed it in game when in external.


@ Ducimus

Thats why I have avoided sim.cfg changes, beacuse it is so much more complicated.

I want to ever make tiny changes on that file as sonar seems to be working quite well with regards to max ranges.

Actually, why does sonar work quite well and hydro does not. Also the sub Hydro doees not reach the lenghs it should do either.

Remeber when I saw something refering to Hydro being useless in one of the files. I wonder if the devs had problems and scrapped it for a quick fix.

All speculation mind you

[CB..]

I just played a test mission using CB's CFG, best bit of fun for ages.
Thing is I have a complaint CB, are trying to kill me, I had to pause to get a stiff drink, my nerves a shattered? :-j

Seriously though it was as you described CB, my stealth meter went from orange to red then 2 DD's made a charge and they hounded the life out of me.
I tried this and that but in the end I came a cropper, I may not be a good as you so I may need a minor tweak to give me a chance, but I like it very much. :up:
he he!! cheers Col!!

remember i haven't tested this set up in single missions only in a proper campaign patrol---even MY DD's are a deadly bunch in single missions--but in campaign mode they have allways been 100% weaker--#

so you'll need to experiment with what suits single mission play as apposed to campaign play (it's not every ones cup of tea)

one tip for this set up is to go deep slow and use the decoys---because the close attacking DD's don't detect you it's all the distant DD's that do the detecting- the decoy is very effective


Heimisent my crewratings are all set to crewrating=2 and this is in campaign mode (there really IS a difference in AI performance in campaign mode than single missions --it's virtually a different game the AI IS much weaker in campaign mode)

Col perhaps lower your crewrating a bit and see if that helps or keep reducing the maximum range of the named hydrophones untill it "softens of" a bit-- if you leave the main generic AI_hydrophones max distance as it is then i think what will happen is that the sub monitor will stay orange for longer as it enters the max range for the AI_hydrophones sensor-- only turning red when you enter the max distance for the named hydrophones--this is going to be my next step


thanks to TT by the way for the great work!!

If not, you are playing very hard now, correct ?


RED!! i reckon this is down again to the much weaker DD's in the campaign mode than single missions - i'm no expert at evasion no way!!
it's the way the DD's are "watered down" in a career

i think we are all agreed this is true? it's certainly a very important consideration :yep:

[gouldjg]

@CB

Hi mate

Glad to hear your having a ball and getting your results.

Can I just ask,

Did you do a standard extension of max ranges for every passive sensor and then the main passive at the top named hydrophone?.

If so can you describe in more detail as to each change with regards to the max. I am aware you changed the min to get blind spots?.

Have you made big changes to waves or noise or have you left this standard?.

I want to start comparing soon, to see which is the main direction to go. I am blinkered into thinking max range changes are my key but also min range blind spots.

The main of this is being done in the ai_sensor_dat file.

Thanks

Jason

[Redwine]

Redwine,

How are you getting your desired Hydrophone ranges?

Are you going back to mixed ai crew or sticking with one type?

I like the idea about decoys and yes your right. Launching these at the wrong times is a very bad thing. Thats why some players thought DD was uber uber uber instead of just uber droppers. I have noticed it in game when in external.

I dont touched them, all max ranges by default.
I take this way because i am sure they are affected by some atenuation by other factors, and if i am touching those factors, detection range will change continuously.

I note before, if i set values to extend max ranges too much, changing values as noise, waves, ranges, DDs become ubber at short ranges.

Theoretically i watch them into the map, into the dash lines, wich changes with your settings.

Any way, i think so, the long detection ranges must to be for radar and visual of course, and for hydrophones when run on diesel, or electric at full and flank.

But at electric standard, 1/3, you must to be detected only at short ranges.

At Low, Low plus Silent Running, and Low plus Silent Running diminuished speed 2 and 1 knot......... you must to be hard to be detected, even undetectable if you dont have the bad luck to be pinged.

Really the ranges to be detected and avoid to fall into dummy or ubber Dds is the challenge now.

:up:

[gouldjg]

Redwine,

How are you getting your desired Hydrophone ranges?

Are you going back to mixed ai crew or sticking with one type?

I like the idea about decoys and yes your right. Launching these at the wrong times is a very bad thing. Thats why some players thought DD was uber uber uber instead of just uber droppers. I have noticed it in game when in external.

I dont touched them, all max ranges by default.
I take this way because i am sure they are affected by some atenuation by other factors, and if i am touching those factors, detection range will change continuously.

I note before, if i set values to extend max ranges too much, changing values as noise, waves, ranges, DDs become ubber at short ranges.

Theoretically i watch them into the map, into the dash lines, wich changes with your settings.

Any way, i think so, the long detection ranges must to be for radar and visual of course, and for hydrophones when run on diesel, or electric at full and flank.

But at electric standard, 1/3, you must to be detected only at short ranges.

At Low, Low plus Silent Running, and Low plus Silent Running diminuished speed 2 and 1 knot......... you must to be hard to be detected, even undetectable if you dont have the bad luck to be pinged.

Really the ranges to be detected and avoid to fall into dummy or ubber Dds is the challenge now.

:up:

I am just going to kick up my game and see if I am infact kidding myself here when I am saying I think I have it sussed.

If by setting the max ranges upto (lets say) average of 13500 and do not touch sim.cfg at all.

Do you guys suspect I am getting detected even in silent running?.

I have yet to experience this. To me it seems to be working ok, but like you all say.

"Hard evidence is needed here".

It's best if I start backing my theory up a little here. :up:

[Ducimus]

Ok i got varying weather conditions to work.

I cant say these are accurate, but their in the ballpark for 0.4 noise and 0.5 wave factors:

at 5 winds, and all other weather conditions being clear (IE clear calm day)

1/3rd = 2700-2800
slow = 1800-1900
Silent = 800-900
1 to 1.5 knots = 500 meters

At 15 winds and all other weather conditions being clear (IE clear, but windy day with whitecaps)

1/3rd = 1100-1200 range
slow = 700-800
Silent = dunno, got detected


At 15 winds, and max particpation, and overcast (storm):

1/3d = 1100
slow = 110-200
silent = he was right next to me beore the meter went red.


Frankly im thinking about enlarging the clear weather detection radius. Need to test at 7 knott winds and average conditions still. out of time at the moment.

EDIT: I should note that all of my tsting has b een at periscope depth. If it makes a difference if i went to 50 or 100 meters i dunno. Ive been using the periscope to mark my distances but in hindsight i might start using active sonar since i dont think it alerts the DD. Started using it under storm conditions cause the scope was usless and the DD didnt seem to mind :rotfl:

EDIT2:
I think the wave factor might reall be killing detection. My question now is which direction to push the wave factor so its less of an unfluence? Farther from zero or closer to zero?

I might give up soon, and just start using CB's settings, it sound intresting.

[Redwine]

If not, you are playing very hard now, correct ?


RED!! i reckon this is down again to the much weaker DD's in the campaign mode than single missions - i'm no expert at evasion no way!!
it's the way the DD's are "watered down" in a career

i think we are all agreed this is true? it's certainly a very important consideration :yep:

I am not sure if i understand well, my english is so bad, but i really dont have too much experience against Dds in campaign, in campaign i always run away from DDs prior them detect me, if posible i dont let them to detect me, and if on risk i forget the attack.

In sigle missions i become as Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde, i put flank speed, rise my scope, some times i shoot them with my deck gun to ensure they know i am there........... :doh: .......to provocate them, and enjoy evading them.

But when egage a convoy i was enforced to evade them in campaign, not often, but i done many times, and may be you are right, they seems more soft..... i was thinking it was due i not pass beyond the early years of war.

[CB..]

@CB

Hi mate

Glad to hear your having a ball and getting your results.

Can I just ask,

Did you do a standard extension of max ranges for every passive sensor and then the main passive at the top named hydrophone?.

If so can you describe in more detail as to each change with regards to the max. I am aware you changed the min to get blind spots?.

Have you made big changes to waves or noise or have you left this standard?.

I want to start comparing soon, to see which is the main direction to go. I am blinkered into thinking max range changes are my key but also min range blind spots.

The main of this is being done in the ai_sensor_dat file.

Thanks

Jason

here's the thing i've left the maximum ranges for all the hydrophones (and all the other sensors too) as stock --no increase in maximum range--
tho i DID sneak the generic AI_Hydrophone sensor max to 8000 as a side experiment- this is why i THINK? the sub meter goes orange before it goes red --see previous post for the theory)
what i did was to increase the minimum range to 1000 metres

and use col's trick on the sim.cfg--

i get detected at exactly the defined maximum distance in the AI_sensors.dat -- spot on usually--

i'm not sure this is going to be usefull to you as it is now (due to the sim.cfg entrys being entirely non stock) but the feel of the concept is to avoid thinking about the facts and figures and to exploit the natural DD behaviuor in a way that makes them as interesting an opponent as possible in game--

making them co-operate in ways that normally they wouldn't have to do--

a slow moving DD at 1000 metres wouldn't normally have to "ask" a DD at 4000 plus metres to check on your location so it can make it's attack run--

the trick being that un-less you know that this is what's going on - it appears in gameplay terms to be realistic behaviuor--
this was the entire thrust of my work on the SH2 DD's
make the gameplay "feel" realistic and it doesn't matter exactly what's going on in terms of sensor information-- it allso makes things un-predictable and presents the player with a bit of a puzzle--makes you feel like your going up against something more human than the normal sim type AI--that's my main ai any way-- this is a fair start! :yep:
but it will not satisfy the die hards-- :nope:

[gouldjg]

EDIT: I should note that all of my tsting has b een at periscope depth. If it makes a difference if i went to 50 or 100 meters i dunno. Ive been using the periscope to mark my distances but in hindsight i might start using active sonar since i dont think it alerts the DD. Started using it under storm conditions cause the scope was usless and the DD didnt seem to mind

Yep I noticed this,

When I went to say 20mtre the ranges got longer.

My standard setting is pd, 20mtre and 50mtre.

I would only use these in campaign unless attacked.

I think the hydrophones ceiling is at 10 mtre and pd is only 12.

[gouldjg]

@CB

Hi mate

Glad to hear your having a ball and getting your results.

Can I just ask,

Did you do a standard extension of max ranges for every passive sensor and then the main passive at the top named hydrophone?.

If so can you describe in more detail as to each change with regards to the max. I am aware you changed the min to get blind spots?.

Have you made big changes to waves or noise or have you left this standard?.

I want to start comparing soon, to see which is the main direction to go. I am blinkered into thinking max range changes are my key but also min range blind spots.

The main of this is being done in the ai_sensor_dat file.

Thanks

Jason

here's the thing i've left the maximum ranges for all the hydrophones (and all the other sensors too) as stock --no increase in maximum range--
tho i DID sneak the generic AI_Hydrophone sensor max to 8000 as a side experiment- this is why i THINK? the sub meter goes orange before it goes red --see previous post for the theory)
what i did was to increase the minimum range to 1000 metres

and use col's trick on the sim.cfg--

i get detected at exactly the defined maximum distance in the AI_sensors.dat -- spot on usually--

i'm not sure this is going to be usefull to you as it is now (due to the sim.cfg entrys being entirely non stock) but the feel of the concept is to avoid thinking about the facts and figures and to exploit the natural DD behaviuor in a way that makes them as interesting an opponent as possible in game--

making them co-operate in ways that normally they wouldn't have to do--

a slow moving DD at 1000 metres wouldn't normally have to "ask" a DD at 4000 plus metres to check on your location so it can make it's attack run--

the trick being that un-less you know that this is what's going on - it appears in gameplay terms to be realistic behaviuor--
this was the entire thrust of my work on the SH2 DD's
make the gameplay "feel" realistic and it doesn't matter exactly what's going on in terms of sensor information-- it allso makes things un-predictable and presents the player with a bit of a puzzle--makes you feel like your going up against something more human than the normal sim type AI--that's my main ai any way-- this is a fair start! :yep:
but it will not satisfy the die hards-- :nope:


Ahhhhhh

So you are the guy who had me sitting for days on SH2 wondering how the hell I was detected. :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What mod was it?

I tried a few but then just went to wolfpack leauge (forgot the proper name) for a short while to experience the mp which was great with those stat missions.

[Ducimus]

EDIT: I should note that all of my tsting has b een at periscope depth. If it makes a difference if i went to 50 or 100 meters i dunno. Ive been using the periscope to mark my distances but in hindsight i might start using active sonar since i dont think it alerts the DD. Started using it under storm conditions cause the scope was usless and the DD didnt seem to mind

Yep I noticed this,

When I went to say 20mtre the ranges got longer.

My standard setting is pd, 20mtre and 50mtre.

I would only use these in campaign unless attacked.

I think the hydrophones ceiling is at 10 mtre and pd is only 12.

Belch ill try it again at 50 meters . Maybe im more in the figure i want then i think i am. I totally forgot that pasive sonar had a cone to it.

[Der Teddy Bar]

This link has the SHIII u-boat sensor formulas (http://www.mistari.com.au/shiii/shiii_Sensor_Formulas.htm). I would presume that they are also the same formulas used for the Escort AI...

Regarding your testing...
I can only presume that no one is using a default version of SHIII (1.4b) and it is most likely that there will be varying versions of RUB, the 16Km visibility etc, as well as a mixture of what ever else thrown in. This makes for a poor testing environment, even more so with group testing, as what works for one may not work for others.

A default version (1.4b) is needed to ensure that there is no other factor distorting the results. No one here can say with any certainty that changes made to produce the 16km visibility mod is not having an adverse effect regarding the detection of your u-boat by the AI. We can presume that it doesn't, but that is a very big assumption.

By everyone having the default version you can then take other peoples experiences more at face value. With everyone using their own bastardised version then there is a high chance that someone might actually hit the nail on the head and their find gets put aside as it did not work for most others as they got a distorted result as a consequence of the bastardised version they were using.

Also time compression will play a part in how the results play out. The Avon Lady showed this to great effect when he posted his thread regarding at what distances your crew would ‘see’ an enemy ship at various time compressions. It is my interpretation of The Avon Lady’s find, that at higher compression values that certain processes may need to be prioritised resulting in some of them being dropped. As such, a maximum time compression should be agreed upon. I would say no greater than 4x in these tests.

I think that you are starting to use the same test missions, another very important test factor.

I will not be visiting this thread again as I am too busy checking the number of rivets on the torpedos.

[CB..]

Ahhhhhh

So you are the guy who had me sitting for days on SH2 wondering how the hell I was detected. :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What mod was it?

I tried a few but then just went to wolfpack leauge (forgot the proper name) for a short while to experience the mp which was great with those stat missions.

no i was the guy who had you wondering how the heck it was that you managed to SURVIVE being detected :yep:

the mod was called DES (various versions from DES1 thru to DES5 as it grew over time and i found new elements to work on)

the side effect of having all the detection done (back here in SH3) by long range DD's is that the close range attacking DD's are more likely to mask your presense with their screws as they maneuver for DC drops---hence creating an additional problem for the long range "monitoring" DD's

it's all about creating a dynamic ever changing scenario for the DD's to work with (and the player too) :up:

[Vader 1]

CB you said it best. This game/sim what ever ,is not the real thing its an attempt to recreate a atmosphere, a sense of how the Uboats and DD etc interacted . By sticking to certain setting under the shield of"realistic values" we lose the intent of what CB is trying to do .
Carry on your great work to refine the games until it feels right (ps your TDC mod and UZO mod for SH2 still rock)
Vader

[CB..]

CB you said it best. This game/sim what ever ,is not the real thing its an attempt to recreate a atmosphere, a sense of how the Uboats and DD etc interacted . By sticking to certain setting under the shield of"realistic values" we lose the intent of what CB is trying to do .
Carry on your great work to refine the games until it feels right (ps your TDC mod and UZO mod for SH2 still rock)
Vader
Cheers vader!! :oops: :up:

[CB..]

Regarding your testing...
I can only presume that no one is using a default version of SHIII (1.4b)

ahem--by a strange co-incidence i would fullfill that particular requierment-- ;) i'm generally speaking allergic to any mod with the word real in it :up:

[gouldjg]

@CB

I like your style of realism, :yep: :yep:

Much like you, I go for playability/realism unless one too far detracts from the other.

You worded it well though,

The feel of real life randomnes and dynamics is far better than a battle of absolutes.

@Der Teddy,

A massive thanks for that info, although I cannot make head to tail with regard to the calculations (will get the boys in the lab tommorow to have a good scan) it does provide some good insights into the mechanics.

With regards to complete and scientific testings,

I agree to some point yet this has been discussed before, The more different routes that are explored right now whilst we are learning seem to be providing the info that each of us need.

There is no way I am going to sit on this like i am being paid to do it. At 0800 you will test with this setting etc etc,

I don't do dicipline :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Later on I think it would be upto a big mod group to do this.

All us tester here have different perspectives at the moment though I am ready to drop mine, should I favour more anothers.

Still too early to talk about beta's :up:

Maybe You and tonnage mod can whip something up :up:

[Ducimus]

Regarding your testing...
I can only presume that no one is using a default version of SHIII (1.4b)

ahem--by a strange co-incidence i would fullfill that particular requierment-- ;) i'm generally speaking allergic to any mod with the word real in it :up:

Im using default sensitivty values on the passive sonar, but i ramped up ALL passive ranges to 8500. Im using this as an average range since its a middle road number between the low end passive and high end passive.



@ gouldjg

Just reran a few tests, at 100 meters, didnt much, if any difference at all.

Im gonan go back and reread some of CBs posts and start using some of his settings i think.

[CB..]

as long as were not competeing with each other and as long as were sharing the results we cannot go that far wrong in the end---only reason i'm here is that i'm utterly fed up playing a dang screen saver--same as every one else-problesm with the DD's--the changes i make are based on the information as shared by every-one else and i hope that is the spirit of the thread

if you keep pouring water into a dry well long enough the bucket will float to the surface--and in that bucket will be the answer--- LOL- bit airy fairy--but that's precisely what's happening-- :rock:
every idea suggested and tried here pours another gallon of water into the well! :arrgh!:
and lets face it we can at least SEE the bucket now!!

[Marhkimov]

as long as were not competeing with each other and as long as were sharing the results we cannot go that far wrong in the end---only reason i'm here is that i'm utterly fed up playing a dang screen saver--same as every one else-problesm with the DD's--the changes i make are based on the information as shared by every-one else and i hope that is the spirit of the thread

I don't get it... Are we competing against each other?

[CB..]

I don't get it... Are we competing against each other?

that's i suppose entirely a matter of personal choice-- :lol:

[Redwine]

Ahhhhhh

So you are the guy who had me sitting for days on SH2 wondering how the hell I was detected. :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What mod was it?

I tried a few but then just went to wolfpack leauge (forgot the proper name) for a short while to experience the mp which was great with those stat missions.


He made the DES5 Mod, it was one of the best mods done for SH2, this mod introduce a big chnage into Dds behavior.
Adding Depth Charges Lethal Radius Mod, to DES5 V2, i obtain those 30 hours Dds hunting as in real life.
one time i was enforcd to surface out of oxigen and batteries.

What can i say... just wonderful :up:



This link has the SHIII u-boat sensor formulas (http://www.mistari.com.au/shiii/shiii_Sensor_Formulas.htm). I would presume that they are also the same formulas used for the Escort AI...

Regarding your testing...
I can only presume that no one is using a default version of SHIII (1.4b) .............

A default version (1.4b) is needed to ensure that there is no other factor distorting the results.

Also time compression will play a part in how the results play out. The Avon Lady showed this to great effect when he posted his thread regarding at what distances your crew would ‘see’ an enemy ship at various time compressions.

I think that you are starting to use the same test missions, another very important test factor.

I will not be visiting this thread again as I am too busy checking the number of rivets on the torpedos.

Thanks for the formulas....... now we need to understand them :88) :88) :up:

About a clear V1.4b installation i think so it is hard, i am not ready to back to a installation with lack of lot of things, and no body uses.

Thanks a lot for time compression tip, i wasnt at know of that experiment from "Ubbermom", can you give us the link to the topic plese ?

About to use the same missions, we are near to that, all we here are using near to same mission but not a only one, a set of them, plus there are testing on campaigns.

About the rivets :lol: ....... plese stops that ;) :up:

Many thanks.


CB you said it best. This game/sim what ever ,is not the real thing its an attempt to recreate a atmosphere, a sense of how the Uboats and DD etc interacted . By sticking to certain setting under the shield of"realistic values" we lose the intent of what CB is trying to do .
Carry on your great work to refine the games until it feels right (ps your TDC mod and UZO mod for SH2 still rock)
Vader

Completelly agree. It is not important if the setting we input are historical or not, the important is to obtain a similar to real and beliable behavior, recreating how the subs and DDs interact.

:up:

[Ducimus]

Im not competing.

Everyone seemed focused on the active sonar's.

So i decided to focus on the passive, that and im hoping in passive we can increase detection.



I'm | THIS | close to just zeroing out the wave factor, and punching a big hole in the min distance on passive to make silent working. Quick and easy. Infact im going to test that in normal and stormy weather.

Only problem is theres no variaion in play and theoriticaly DD's will have unrealistic passive sonar ablities in inclimate weather.. BUT... at least they'll resond.

You can make them detect you at 3K, but the instant you toss in some weather with some wave factor, they practially have to step on you to find you. Realistic maybe, but not very fun.

[Redwine]

as long as were not competeing with each other and as long as were sharing the results we cannot go that far wrong in the end---only reason i'm here is that i'm utterly fed up playing a dang screen saver--same as every one else-problesm with the DD's--the changes i make are based on the information as shared by every-one else and i hope that is the spirit of the thread

I don't get it... Are we competing against each other?


The first to release a mod will win a non exploded helgedog ...... :doh:

:rotfl:

No Marhkimov, we are working together and sharing info to break the secrets of DDs detection.

And we had a wonderful job here.....

What later ? I dont know, may be each one made a own adaptation to own installation. :hmm:

Personally i preffer a good tutorial including TT tols and teaching people how to make the changes. :hmm:

Or may be we can make a pack, with files from every one behavior, one hard with far detections, one soft with short detections, one medium...... put all in a pack and share it with the subcommunity. :hmm:

Any way everybody can read this topic and learn what we was discovering, to make the modification is easy, with a notepad and TT Tool it is so easy and every body can reach to do it. :hmm:

[gouldjg]

I don't get it... Are we competing against each other?

that's i suppose entirely a matter of personal choice-- :lol:

:rotfl: :rotfl:

There is no competition here :88) (gouldjg packs all his files up ready for distribution to go and claim kudos kudos) :arrgh!: :rotfl:

Im with CB

I am going to have a set of settings that can compliment a new damage model I am considering in the nearfuture (depending on what the Tonnage mod is like for me).

That is going to take some time though cos I have to strip the hitpoints etc etc of almost everything that moves, shoots, or is shot.

At the very most I am going to pack it all up and say "look this is what I have set and it gives me a good game"

"I cannot guarentee that this is going to work for everyone so installer beware"

"If you like to make adjustments please read the DD thread and hopefully a small wiki from all those whom have been involved which all though is not of a dev team quality, all worked hard in their own rights"


That is it period, no shame, no secrets, no bragging rights.

I do not think any one of us want to shout out any total sensor mod that claims to have cracked it all, cos we all know different.

If however someone wants to recalculate every varible and make an absolute average that works with all version of the game, then good luck to him/her. man, they deserve the kudos to even contimplate the task.

I just simply do not have the patience anymore and work is getting to become a strain over this xmas period.

Why do people always have accidents at xmas and tie me up all day on the phone :hulk:

I thought it might have been easier in the earlier days but after so much discussion I think it is best to look at it as CB does.

Team Effort :up: :up: but get your own game fixed in the process.

[Col7777]

I'm same as CB, just using the 1.4 version, no RUB just Serg's U-boats and a couple of others.

I've just played the Happy Hour mission, I got toasted, I was not doing too bad but a couple of frigates hounded me.
I thought at one point I was being clever, I hid in the wake of a merchant but he knew I was there, the merchie picked up speed then they got me, but thanks to CB, again it was great fun.

[gouldjg]

I'm same as CB, just using the 1.4 version, no RUB just Serg's U-boats and a couple of others.

I've just played the Happy Hour mission, I got toasted, I was not doing too bad but a couple of frigates hounded me.
I thought at one point I was being clever, I hid in the wake of a merchant but he knew I was there, the merchie picked up speed then they got me, but thanks to CB, again it was great fun.

Happytimes ?
Hiding in wakes ?
They got you ?

Man you must be cr*p lol lol only joking :up:

It tickled me reading it, that does sound like fun compared to the ammount of times we used to walk all over the Happytimes,

CB, you must be onto something there :up:

[Col7777]

@ gouldjg,

I am crap, I spend too much time tweaking, I should play a bit more. :)

[HEMISENT]

Just finished a test U 505 mission.
Changed everything per CB's settings
First, at mission start my boat is located approximately 4-500m off an escorts port bow. With raised scope at slow speed the escort is blind. As I continue to increase speed there is still no indication the escort knows I'm there. Finally, we are off his port side my boat is at flank speed and the sound meter begins to flicker The escort is pulling away rapidly. Absolutely nothing I did could get the DD's interested in me until I surfaced to get their attention and crash dived. Then all hell broke loose. The escort behavior appeared much more concentrated than previous missions. Using the sound meter(first time ever) it appears silent running really does have an effect. The green sub would flicker between green and orange constantly until they began pinging then solid red. The dc attacks were close enough to cause damage but not too uber. Finally worked my way down to 160m attempting to evade. Actually for about 15 minutes I was having a great time until 2 escort's collided. They continued welded together doing a couple of very wide 360's. From then on the remaining three escorts would make half hearted runs in my direction but would just lose interest.

Once the escorts collided there was no more pinging, no more hydrophone use from any of the remaining ships. The green sub icon stayed green from then on. Nothing I did could get the three remaining ships to actively search for me. Flank speed, reduce depth, ping for bottom half dozen times-nothing. Finally they all gave up and left.

Going back to an earlier conversation regarding a lead escort. is it possible that one of the crashed ships was the leader and with him occupied/out of the picture everyone else just shut down???

I guess now I try a campaign mission

[Ducimus]

Im trying to recap, abosrb and understand what CB's doing. The bold parts im wondering, "where did those come from and what do they do, and how much effect do they cause?"


the entire set up is just

increasing the minimum ranges for all the hydrophones (including the generic A_hydrophone) to 1000

(all other AI_sensors.dat entrys as stock)

and this sim.cfg


[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.4 ;[0,1]
Waves attenuation=0.02 ;>=0

[AI Cannons]
Max error angle=20 ;[deg]
Max fire range=5000 ;[m]
Max fire wait=22 ;[s]

[AI AA guns]
Max error angle=5 ;[deg]
Max fire range=1000 ;[m]
Max fire wait=7 ;[s]

[AI detection]
Lost contact time=6 ;[min]

[Visual]
Detection time=0.5 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1) at (sensitivity * max range) we have a double detection time.
Fog factor=0.3 ;[>=0]
Light factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=400 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]

[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=3.0 ;[m2]

[Hydrophone]
range factor=1 ;[>=0]
fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
light factor=0 ;[>=0]
waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.50 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=10 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=2



Also as i understand it hes running active sonar at 100 meters to 1300 meters and passive from 1500 to, 6000?

Im wondering if that gap is whats causing the lack of pinging? My guess is the DD's have to have a passive contact before they start pinging.

Set me straight so i understand. :88)

[HEMISENT]

Hiding in the wake of a merchant is what got me past Gibralter once and into the Med. Getting out was another story.

[Redwine]

Just finished a test U 505 mission.
Changed everything per CB's settings
First, at mission start my boat is located approximately 4-500m off an escorts port bow. With raised scope at slow speed the escort is blind. As I continue to increase speed there is still no indication the escort knows I'm there. Finally, we are off his port side my boat is at flank speed and the sound meter begins to flicker

I think so this behavior is due to Speed Factor value. :hmm:

If i dont remember bad, DDs are deaf above that speed, sensor dont works above the speedfactor speed.

And in the mission U-505, at sart up they are running at high speed. You need to trigger them with another warning as visual or radar.

If you look into the CB setting speed factor are under DDs initial DDs speeds at mission start up.


@ CB :

CB, are you sure about the speed factor you set at hydrophones....... ? :hmm:

It must to be in knots i think so. :hmm:



[Hydrophone]
range factor=1 ;[>=0]
fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
light factor=0 ;[>=0]
waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.50 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=10 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=2


Please take a look......... :up:

[gouldjg]

Guys I need help here

I have wrapped up a sample of what I have tweaked to date.

As you all know, I have tried to leave the sim.cfg alone barring some very minor changes here and there i.e. aspect etc.

Most of my changes has been in the sensors_dat and the fact I changed the crew to a single level 4.

Could some people please test this in game for the passive changes I have made and also try 505 mission for active behaviour and DD pin drop DC solution to date.

http://rapidshare.de/files/8512103/Passive_Tests.rar.html

Could you please also back up your single mission files and then change the crew to 4 for the missions you wish to check.


I am after evidence that this is not giving you the results it is giving me.

Bearing in mind that you need to be looking at DD's that move slower than 15 knts as is default in game.

At one point I thought things were wrong until I noticed some DD move faster so in effect cannot hear anyway.

Upto to now, I feel I am getting pretty much bang on results in the passive department but as always, new looks at it may uncover things I have overlooked. (The Creators Tunnel Vision)

I know one thing for sure, it is harder approaching convoys unless I planned carefully.

All critisism is welcome so dont feel like you do not want to throw spanners in the works. It is the spanners that turn us nuts to get a better grip.

Thanks all

[CB..]

don't shout at me but i have the basics for a purely personal set up (just for myself to finally get some game play out of this fabulous moving oil painting of a game--it really is like watching a brilliantly animated oil painting of the uboat war!!)

in order to check something out and test the sort of behaviuor i went back in and REDUCED all the hydrophone maximum distances by 4000 metres (yes i did say 4000 metres) leaving only the AI_Hydrophone max range at 8000 metres- the rest once edited were between 2500 metres and 4500 metres)

another campaign patrol--- eventually tracked down a convoy in heavy seas and fog-- much rain and lightning etc--

couldn't see a thing so was a bit hard to tell at what range i was detected-- but around 3 to 4000 metres out as i submerged (i was having trouble finding it lol) at silent running of course--- this time i went thru every possible shade of green and red on the little sub meter -- spooky disembodied searchlghts started appearing all around me--- the detection meter going thro colour changes about every 30 seconds--
the DD's did a good job keeping me on my toes but never really presnted any real threat--- might have been different in calmer seas daylight no fog etc etc--but not massively so compared to the previous test patrol where it was exactly that and the hydrophones all had stock max distances--

as i was playing it occured to me that this patrol was doing a good job of representing early war/happy times difficulty levels--without ever allowing me to become complacent-- the DD's were allways too close to allow that- and they were DC-ing all around me at one point-- give all these same DD's k-guns and i would have been in trouble--- give them all hedgehogs and it would have been seriously hazardous

as it was (1942) only the corvettes had k-guns and only one on each side-- the rest only had the normal dc racks--

if i checked which hydrophones were early war (easily done) and left those max ranges as i have just set them ( 4000 metres less max range than stock--plus of course the 1000 metres minimum range on all the phones right thru the war)

for the mid war hydrophones i could increase the max range slightly and let the k-guns take care of the rest of difficulty level--

and for the late war hydrophones i could use the slightly less than stock max ranges and the mutliple k-gun racks and hedghogs would make things appropiately nasty

all the time keeping the minimum ranges at 1000 metres or perhaps reducing this slightly for late war

the DD's in this patrol did use their sonar and were actively (exsuse the pun) pinging me from time to time--so folks were right about that

this is just what i have come up with using all the information we have been trying and testing so far-- more to come and better i'm positive--

im not going to release a mod that's not what i came here for--but there's enough here to create interesting gameplay from the start thru to the end of the campaign--

im sure this is most likely down to the uberised hydrophones due to the sim.cfg entrys as i have made the hydrophones far less effective than stock and we all know what they were like for me with the stock sim.cfg entrys--useless

reducing the max range is hardly going to make them more effective (?)
incresing the minimum range isn't going to make them more effective at long range (?) and that is ALL i've done--so it surely is down to the unothodox sim.cfg hydrophone entrys (and i have Col to thank for that one !! :rock: :up: :sunny: )

it may not be uber realistic but boy is it fun and VERY atmospheric--

and very simple to do aswell too--IF it works for every-one--IF it doesn't yikes then any set up isn't going to work for every-one so were still some way from solving that one--

i haven't even tried this set up in a single mission tho--it has to be said

i'd certainly propose this sort of edit if only on the grounds that it combines genuine challenge and fun..

it might actually be a good set up for multiplayer --theyre certainly not predictable--and do almost seem "human"


argghhh :oops:
SORRY G@ simulteaneous post-- extremely bad timing -- what i'm meaning to say is that it's a shame that the sim.cfg stuff is so incompatible with other approaches--may be if it does turn out in the end that their are two sets of people whose game suffers from different DD issues this is a way to deal with one of the problems

[gouldjg]

Guys I need help here

I have wrapped up a sample of what I have tweaked to date.

As you all know, I have tried to leave the sim.cfg alone barring some very minor changes here and there i.e. aspect etc.

Most of my changes has been in the sensors_dat and the fact I changed the crew to a single level 4.

Could some people please test this in game for the passive changes I have made and also try 505 mission for active behaviour and DD pin drop DC solution to date.

http://rapidshare.de/files/8512103/Passive_Tests.rar.html

Could you please also back up your single mission files and then change the crew to 4 for the missions you wish to check.


I am after evidence that this is not giving you the results it is giving me.

Bearing in mind that you need to be looking at DD's that move slower than 15 knts as is default in game.

At one point I thought things were wrong until I noticed some DD move faster so in effect cannot hear anyway.

Upto to now, I feel I am getting pretty much bang on results in the passive department but as always, new looks at it may uncover things I have overlooked. (The Creators Tunnel Vision)

I know one thing for sure, it is harder approaching convoys unless I planned carefully.

All critisism is welcome so dont feel like you do not want to throw spanners in the works. It is the spanners that turn us nuts to get a better grip.

Thanks all

[CB..]

@ CB :

CB, are you sure about the speed factor you set at hydrophones....... ? :hmm:

It must to be in knots i think so. :hmm:



[Hydrophone]
range factor=1 ;[>=0]
fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
light factor=0 ;[>=0]
waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.50 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=10 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=2


Please take a look......... :up:yes it's a complete mystery to me that one -- i've sat and looked at it and it makes no sense at all- ( these settings are actually the same as the u-boat settings in the sensors.cfg)
why one earth having a speed factor of half a knot doesn't utterly cripple the DD's hydrophones i have no idea-- absolutely none--speed factor is used in the stock sim.cfg entrys and it works as normal there- so why does it work differently when used like this?
yup your right about the sonar speedfactor i could do with increasing that a little might be why they are so slow to ping me-- :yep:



Also as i understand it hes running active sonar at 100 meters to 1300 meters and passive from 1500 to, 6000?



Hemisent ! the sonar is at stock settings and ranges-- and the hydrophones are at stock (or less if you want) max ranges and 1000 metres minimum ranges-- :up:

when i reduced the max ranges to 4000 metres LESS than stock ranges the DD's started using their sonar again--and were STILL able to find me and attack--i don't pretend to know exactly what's going on-- i haven't got it all under control--but that's ok by me! i don't want to have it all under control--got to be some surprises for me when i get in game--!!

[Ducimus]

when i reduced the max ranges to 4000 metres LESS than stock ranges the DD's started using their sonar again--and were STILL able to find me and attack--i don't pretend to know exactly what's going on-- i haven't got it all under control--but that's ok by me!

:hmm:

I think for my own game, im going to do this:

Sim.cfg
-waves 0.0 (hopefuly this will make it disregard the weather so i get some consistnat behavior to fine tune the noise factor)

- Noise factor somerehre in between 0.45 and 0.55 is my happy point. My goal is that within 3K of an escort, running at 1/3rd isnt a very good idea! Within 2K i'd better be silent. At 5 or 6K, if i crash dive after shooting,, everyones gonna hear it! I may ramp these figures up. I expect to be walking on eggshells when on the firing point.



Active sonar,
reduce min range to err... 150 to 200... damn hedge hogs!

Passive sonar,
Increase minimum range to about 700. Goal here is to make silent speed silent. WIth the sim.cfg adjustments an increase min radius is my ad hoc fix for that.

Hopefully that will work.

If i have problems with lack of active sonar pings, ill try reducing max passive to 4K, thanks for the tip !



@ gouldjg

I'll test it out for ya, but you just reminded me that i changed the starting position on my U505 mission and i forgot to back it up. DOH! Include your u505 mission and ill give it a go sometime this weekend hopefully.

[CB..]

when i reduced the max ranges to 4000 metres LESS than stock ranges the DD's started using their sonar again--and were STILL able to find me and attack--i don't pretend to know exactly what's going on-- i haven't got it all under control--but that's ok by me!

:hmm:

I think for my own game, im going to do this:

Sim.cfg
-waves 0.0 (hopefuly this will make it disregard the weather so i get some consistnat behavior to fine tune the noise factor)

- Noise factor somerehre in between 0.45 and 0.55 is my happy point. My goal is that within 3K of an escort, running at 1/3rd isnt a very good idea! Within 2K i'd better be silent. At 5 or 6K, if i crash dive after shooting,, everyones gonna hear it! I may ramp these figures up. I expect to be walking on eggshells when on the firing point.



Active sonar,
reduce min range to err... 150 to 200... damn hedge hogs!

Passive sonar,
Increase minimum range to about 700. Goal here is to make silent speed silent. WIth the sim.cfg adjustments an increase min radius is my ad hoc fix for that.

Hopefully that will work.

If i have problems with lack of active sonar pings, ill try reducing max passive to 4K, thanks for the tip !



@ gouldjg

I'll test it out for ya, but you just reminded me that i changed the starting position on my U505 mission and i forgot to back it up. DOH! Include your u505 mission and ill give it a go sometime this weekend hopefully.

if you really want to kill the waves factor remove the entry altogether
one thing that was very apparent on the last run and the previuos one allso- was that the red sub detection metre and the we have been detected message wasn't a true indication of wether a DD had "latched onto" you -- only implied that they knew you were "some-where" - perhaps merely an indication that some hydrophone operator on a Dd was talking to his CO saying " i think that might be a sub - sir what do you think?" - as it did not immediately result in a DD charging you down every time--often they would lose you again before confirming the contact

[gouldjg]

All my single missions with level 4 crew and default starting points.




http://rapidshare.de/files/8514676/English.rar.html

[HEMISENT]

Gouldjg
Just dl'd your test setup. I think I'll compare same scenarios between yours and CB's.

Redwine,
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. The escorts are travelling so fast they're making too much noise...sometimes I can't see the forest because there's a bunch of trees in the way.

[Ducimus]

You know CB,

Honestly i dont want to remove the wave factor. I want a degree of ramdomness. I dont want to pop the scope, look at a DD and know exactly when he'll see me.

THeres three lines in your sim.cfg that i think are key. Well, its kinda of obvious with no other major changes to the wave/sound factor behind reducing them by half.

[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.4 ;[0,1]
Waves attenuation=0.02 ;>=0

[Hydrophone]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]

Are these what give you all the nifty behavior from the DD?s?

I dont recall the [mech] section, was it always there?

Looks like its adjusting the variables which effect the wave factor. Sort of indirectly tinkering with the wave factr?

Aspect =0? Turning aspect angle off? If so i guess that would increase probably of detection greatly.

Already tracking modifer? whered this come from? and how do the values scale? In other words is 1 the lowest and 20 the highest or does it work the other way around?

[Redwine]

yes it's a complete mystery to me that one -- i've sat and looked at it and it makes no sense at all- ( these settings are actually the same as the u-boat settings in the sensors.cfg)
why one earth having a speed factor of half a knot doesn't utterly cripple the DD's hydrophones i have no idea-- absolutely none--speed factor is used in the stock sim.cfg entrys and it works as normal there- so why does it work differently when used like this?
yup your right about the sonar speedfactor i could do with increasing that a little might be why they are so slow to ping me-- :yep:

mmhh.... :hmm: , if i dont understand bad you, my english is not good, you says, this 0,5 value make non sense on the game.

But i remember in my test, DDs become deaf, (nerf ?) when above the speed set there.....

Why 0.5 doesnt make the same ?

May because it is a decimal value ? may be it must to be > than 1 ?

May be the game takes the 0 part of the number instead 0,5 ?

What happens if you put 1, or 2 ?

May be the game takes 0 zero, and it nule the entry ?




I think for my own game, im going to do this:

Sim.cfg
-waves 0.0 (hopefuly this will make it disregard the weather so i get some consistnat behavior to fine tune the noise factor)


mmhh.... :hmm: hi Ducimus....

If i am not wrong...... when you aproach the wave factor value to zero, DDs become more deaf.....

If you want to make them more independent of weather conditions, i think so.... and may be wrong, but it think so you must to rise up the value to be near 1.0 ...... :hmm:

In Bisckmark mission with a low wave factor in example 0.1, DDs become deaf, and with a value of 0.8 they become more sesible.

Take a look. :up:



Redwine,
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. The escorts are travelling so fast they're making too much noise...sometimes I can't see the forest because there's a bunch of trees in the way.

I become crazy with that at early tests......., just try rising up the speed factor over DDs cruise speed at mission start up, put in example 30 knots, and they will detect you easy and quickly.....

:up:

[Ducimus]

@ Redwine

Yeah i realize that low decimal values in the wave factor makes for deaf escorts. But 0 seems to turn off the factor entirely. Ive tested it a number of times. Why i don't know, it makes no logical sense since a value like 0.005 is utter deafness and 1.0 gives them them the ability to hear a Albacore fart at 300 meters 20 Kilmoters away,, but thats what it seems to do.

Try it out!

EDIT:

remeber these numbers are being fed into forumals used by the game. (http://www.mistari.com.au/shiii/shiii_Sensor_Formulas.htm )

zero times anything is always zero. zero divided by anything is always zero.


Oh ya, i love my new forum rank, seems appropriate given my fixation with the DD's passive sonar :-j

[CB..]

mmhh.... :hmm: , if i dont understand bad you, my english is not good, you says, this 0,5 value make non sense on the game.

But i remember in my test, DDs become deaf, (nerf ?) when above the speed set there.....

Why 0.5 doesnt make the same ?

May because it is a decimal value ? may be it must to be > than 1 ?

May be the game takes the 0 part of the number instead 0,5 ?

What happens if you put 1, or 2 ?

May be the game takes 0 zero, and it nule the entry ?




you could be right there Red!

if it were taking 0.5 as the maximum speed for this sensor then you imagine they'd never detect you at all---

but i must admit that the convoy escorts do indeed spend a lot of their time stopped in the water when scanning so it could be reading it as 0.5 knots-- i'm not entirely sure why these sim.cfg entrys are having the effect they are-- it's down to Col's discovery that removing entrys from the sim.cfg has a marked effect on the sensors making them slightly "uber" -- how this works i'm not at all clear-- but i decided to try and exploit it and see where it went--

same thing on what Ducimus is saying really--i'm not sure

pretty sure the MECH entry is normal (tho i edited the entrys slightly for an unrelated mod)
wether the other entrys are having an effect i'm again not sure---if anything is causing the effects it's maybe the lack of an Sensitivity entry--


just had another of my test careers ended by a combination of an American single stacker--and a Brit Corvette


after a pretty hefty attack by half a dozen DD's i was left dealing with this American and the corvette--

the American made a DC run then backed off and sat completely stationary some distance away - and guided the corvette right over me blam blam --blam blam blam ---blam boom!!!

didn't even get chance to secure from silent running to make repairs - boat destroyed!

was a pretty hectic encounter all round---i didn't know which way to turn next lol-- detection meter was flashing red- orange- green- like a set of disco lights lol!!
i was trying to play more sensibly and not using the external view so much
to prevent it from being just another test if you see what i mean--that's the key really not using the external view habitually during DC attacks hikes the difficulty up by at least 300%

still i could have escaped if i had been paying attention? :hmm: :stare: :oops:

next time i'll try to attack from a little further out--

i wasn't detected untill at around 3000 metres-- flat calm seas--

so i had a brief window where-by if - i had been- in a good firing position i could have launched a spread and made a swift exit-- instead of which i went into th middle of the merchants and got into a right scrap with ALL the DD's at once-- was chaos--could hardly hear my self think for DC explosions lol!! at one point the external view looked more like a scene from Apocolypse Now than a subsim-- i could almost hear some DD captain saying " I love the smell of DC's in the morning" they were extremely p*ssed at me indeed :lol:

[Ducimus]

anything is causing the effects it's maybe the lack of an Sensitivity entry--




I totally overlooked that. That definatly is doing something.


Just To reiterate on my two favorite sim.cfg setings:

Here is my understanding of them. Lets imagine thse are knobs you can turn on a peice of equipment like a stereo.

Noise factor:(stock setting is 1.0)
1+---------------------0.5---------------------0
Low volume-----------middle-----------------Full blast!
DEAF----------------------------------------UBER




Wave factor:(stock setting is 0.5)
0------0.001------------------0.5---------------1
Off------Low volume-------------------------Full blast!
DEAF------------------------middle ---------------UBER



Individually thats how they seem to work, when you start mixing them is when things get fuzzy. Hmmm first reaction to these setting was to change noise to 0.5 (correct,) and wave factor to 0.20 or 0.25 (maybe incorrect). Natural assumption since thats how they scale.

Ill bet if anyone tried 0.5 noise and 0.75 they'd have some pretty uber ears in those DD's.

[CB..]

Just To reiterate on my two favorite sim.cfg setings:

Here is my understanding of them. Lets imagine thse are knobs you can turn on a peice of equipment like a stero.

Noise factor:
+1---------------------0.5---------------------0
Low volume--------------------------------Full blast!
DEAF----------------------------------------UBER




Wave factor:
0------0.001------------------0.5---------------1
Off------Low volume-------------------------Full blast!
DEAF-------------------------------------------UBER



Individually thats how they seem to work, when you start mixin them is when things get fuzzy.

yep that's exactly how i see it aswell-- same on the sensitivity entry being missing from my edit- i think this in some way over rules the noise and waves entrys as i haven't noticed huge differences between differing types of weather--

that's maybe why the speedfactor is perhaps helping to create some dynamics-- as the DD's can only use their hydrophones when at all stop--forcing them to work as a team--or guess where i am?
other wise they'd be un shakeable

[Ducimus]

You know.......

If you take a real good look at the default settings, DD's cant hear a whole lot, but if you look at what they can hear, the biggest thing that determins if we get detected, isnt if were at silent running or even if were at 2/3rd or dare i say flank speed..

the biggest determinate seems to be, the bloody weather. And i ask you all, how often do you have clear calm days in campigns?



Noise factor = 1.0 Default setting, also on the deaf end of the scale
Noise Factor


________________________RPM current

P noise = Noise Factor * (----------------- - 1)

_________________________RPM prag



RPM prag = percentage of maximum RPM
What doesnt make sense though is according to

http://www.mistari.com.au/shiii/shiii_Sensor_Formulas.htm

Note: If P noise <= 0 then object undetectable.

yet if we set our noise factor to 0 its like quite uber, maybe my math is wrong and im not looking at the equation correctly.




Wave factor =0.5 default, a Mid range setting.

Waves factor


__________________________Wave Height

P waves = 1 – Wave Factor *------------------

__________________________ Object Height

[CB..]

perhaps the noise factor and the waves factor are the same element--

the noise factor is the default unit of noise-- which is multiplied according to the waves factor ie weather?

perhaps if we look at the noise factor as how many decibels each notch on the waves factor "volume " control increases it by?

[HEMISENT]

Gouldjg.
A bit of feedback for you
Installed your passive tests and single missions
I ran two test missions so far.
Barham and U 505
My setup is:
patch 1.4b
RUB 1.45
Hollywood damage
(disabled harbor traffic/airpower/16km vis mods)
Barham;
At pd, speed 2kts, task force approaching from the left
sub icon green
Waiting for TF to close within striking range then I fired a salvo of 4 eels towards the approaching BBs.
My boat is positioned almost directly in the path of an escort yet he passes within 50m without a clue.
When the first BB in line is hit I instantly hear active pinging and the sub icon goes red. I immediately order crash dive thinking now were in for it.
Viewing with the F12 key I watch as all the escorts fan out approximately
1000m away and just mill around-very disorganized.
Unexpectedly the 3rd BB in line takes 3 hits-huge explosions. The escorts start pinging away once again. My sub icon goes to red but all the escorts continue going crazy about a mile away finally give up and leave.
Very disappointing.
****************
U 505;
Exact same scenario as I ran with CB's settings just a short while ago for comparison.
Surfaced then CD when closest escort was running parallel to me to get his attention. Took the boat down to 150m as the 1st escort made a hard turn to port and made a pass firing DCs and K guns. Luckily he let go a bit early and only caused minor damage. A 2nd DD comes in head on and makes a pass from bow to stern but drops his DCs late. My speed is still around 4-5 kts heading downward and the sub icon is green. Once escort #2's DCs start exploding off my stern I figure I'll escape in the confusion so I order ahead flank hoping all the noise will cover my getaway. The icon goes to red and here is a 3rd escort coming at me from my 180.
DD#2 continues to make passes to an area about 500m away.
My boat is now at 160m and escort #3 is heading my way fast. I go back to SR and the icon goes green. Escort #3 heads off some distance and drops his depth charges.
To wrap this up 3 escorts all gathered around an area where I was at the beginning of all this about 500-1000m away. I watched them repeatedly make pass after pass on the same spot in the distance. At 160m no amount of noise from my boat could entice them to come over and the icon remained green. I raised my depth to 140m/no Sr heading directly for the group icon green I then gradually increased speed heading toward them, finally about 500m away from the nearest escort the icon flicked to brown/red. That got their attention and one ship headed in my direction.
I immediately went to SR and the icon went green and the escort took off back to his pals.

My impression is that it was real hard to get the escorts to pay any attention whatsover. I experienced very little pinging in the Barham mission and only got pinged once at the beginning of the 505 mission.
The escort AI appeared completely confused and both times it seemed like they would pick one spot where they were convinced I was hiding and just clobber it repeatedly. It seemed almost as tho the escort AI was completely dumbed down.
In both missions there was a moment at the beginning where everything looked promising then all of a sudden their tactics just fell apart.
I'll fire up a campaign mission as it seems that singles play out differently than campaign missions.
more later

[Ducimus]

Im gonna go way out in the deepend here, but Honestly ive been thinking of them in terms of RF gain and squelch. (Think CB radios)

Heres the definitions, do they apply to this scenario? Ive been staring at it too long, and am "stuck in the box" so to speak.


RF Gain
Feature used to automatically boost the amplification of signals being received. As the received signal strength weakens, circuitry automatically compensates by applying more gain to one or more frequency amplifiers thus increasing signal strength. Iis also used to weaken a signal if it is detected as being excessively strong.


Squelch
Feature used to set the minimum signal strength level that will be received. Signals with strengths less than this level will not be heard.

The squelch is usually set to a minimum level to allow any strength signal to be heard. But there are some circumstances where a higher level is necessary for productive reception.



Is this metaphore applicable here? Because this is how ive been approaching this problem. I could be entirely wrong in my approach.

You could be right about them being of the same element. All they really are is subequations for a detection routine/algorythm.

[Ducimus]

I'm pretty sure everyones thinking "Shut up about the wave and noise factors already!"

Forgive me, but im compelled to think aloud for a minute. Maybe it will help.

If you look at the forumlas

http://www.mistari.com.au/shiii/shiii_Sensor_Formulas.htm

Noise factor has ALOT to do with how fast your moving your boat. Primary factors are Engine RPMS.

Wave factor has ALOT to do with how high are the waves and how high an object is.. (what object i dunno, probably the DD)


So heres my thought out loud.

Just how much of the subs noises do i want the DD's to hear, and just how far do i want them to hear it on a (clear/stormy) day?

Im gonna shut up and give it a rest now. :rofl:

[caspofungin]

so how do these formulas work? specifically, noise factor. is rpm current an absolute number eg 50 rpm or 137 rpm? or is it percentage of max rpm? or the aspect factor calculation?

i'm assuming the P values are probabilities. That would make sense of having a factor "detection time" -- eg detection time 1s, once every second the numbers are crunched, explaining why w/ a longer detection time, you can get closer.

[Ducimus]

OK folks for those who want to..

Try these settings. They maybe overkill, , it may not be, i dunno yet.


Detection time=1
Sensitivity=0.03
Height factor=0
Waves factor=0.75
Speed factor=10
Noise factor=0.45


What you should notice, in about 5 knot wind is the following:

1/3rd speed = meters goe red at 2900 meters
slow speed = meter goes red at 2000 meters
Silent speed = meter goes red at about 700-800 meters
at 2 knots = metere goes red at about 450.

In a 15 knot wind youll get the following:
1/3d = red at 1700 meters
slow = 900
silent = undetectable.


Now with this in mind, edit your AI_sensor.dat and make the minimum distance for passive sonars about 400-450 meters. (your choice, im going to go with 400 meters). This way you can creep around at silent speed at 2 knots and have a green meter.

Also suggest to make active sonar minimum distance around 170 to 200.

I beleive these setting are what i'm looking for, for my own game. Try them out if you like. On a clear calm day, your going to be on walking on eggshells, in rough weather you have alot more comfort, but your not totally safe.

I expect these settigns will make those massive tonnage scores drop. It really puts more emphases on your approach ahead of the convoy because once the convoy gets there you wont be able to move around very fast. But this is all speculation, its time to play! At least for me it is


:rock:

[gouldjg]

@Hemisent


If and when a DD decides to go on hunt mode (this is another mystery to me that also seems to be Randomised both in single mission and campaign). Far too many times do DD just hop along and do nothing after you have hit a ship, so I have given in about their intelligence side as I suspect that part is govened somewhere else.

I suspect that I could spend all week fine tuning evrything on the sensors to be at historical ranges but at the end of the day the DD in this game just simply do not have the human behaviour so there is a flaw and the system has to be cheated like CB says.

My passive setting work on approach to a convoy etc etc but they fails to make a DD commit to a attack. They just make em nosey.

He will come snooping at his last contact point and maybe drop a few dc. If in the meantime, If I have gotten out of his active ranges and gone silent, then all he is stuck with, is the last contact point and thus he will just stay there in a small circle till his search time has expired and then move on.

Now Something else is at work as to whether or not other DD's join in on this and that is yet to be uncovered. Also when a ship is hit, there is something totally different at work here (going back to some leader or commander theory)


If we could crack the acive sonars to behave better without having uber lock ons then we may get somewhere but realism has to be lost.

In the same way that CB is maybe looking at the passives so as to almost guarentee the DD,s do something instead of just chugging along.

This is why I am waiting upon Redwines active sonar tweaks to get beams etc narrowed down and have some blind spots etc etc.

It will be a monster to handle but that is the way I am going to go unless we can hack the search patterns and triggers to make DD's HUNT rather than patrol.


Because I play my normal game with all warnings switched off including the "we have been detected lines etc etc" I do suspect that the game will become much more difficult in campaign anyway.


At the moment I think everyone here knows what the problems are but now we are trying to find the DD's behaviour to work more aggressive without dumbing down one side too much or ubering another to much.

We can only play with the DD,s sensors for the time being to try and get them to look like they are being intelligent on the battlefield instead of dummies or super ubers.

I am convinced there are other rules at work concerning DD bahaviour but am clueless as to where to look at them. Maybe there are no other rules and DD are tottally sensor reactive.

In any one of our methods, you will find the faults if you look hard enough but compared to stock, either one will be better.


@Hemisent

Could you just check the passives for me, as I have yet to deal with the other stuff. i.e. just check how close you can get to DD or escorted convoys at diffeent speeds.

Also, just check the pinpoint drops by being flippant in your tactic to see how random dc's drop.

Thats the part I am upto, the rest I am dealing with later as results come in.


@others

Looking at the bahaviour between random types of attacks, what else could possibly be affecting the DD's.

I was wondering if it had something to do with the fact that some are assigned as escorts and some are not in the campaign files.

Maybe when they are escort, they stick to convoy in tight formation but are limited on available actions and when other, they have more free reighns but maybe not look as good as escorted convoy.

If anyone has any ideas on this, I am all ears. Like I say, I do not care how much history is bent as long as I get better game. If I need to assighn hunter groups in early war then so be it.

[CB..]

In the same way that CB is maybe looking at the passives so as to almost guarentee the DD,s do something instead of just chugging along.


that's basically it--i'm use-ing the uber effect from the odd sim.cfg entrys to garantue i get detected-- and luckily am finding ways to make that unpredictable --

ie when the sub meter goes red---the DD's is just suspiciuos (in gameplay terms) last night i was able to sit at scope depth silent running about 3000 metres away from the lead convy escort- the meter was red- the DD was using it's searchlights BUT it wasn't in any way sure where i was so was slowly creeping along trying to get a fix---other DD's were doing the same--the results was i was able to get within firing range of the merchants in real terms undetected--( heck the DD's have got a right to to their job --they must have had far more fasle alarms than genuine sub contacts--i hate the way the game uses the DD's like a light switch--- switch them on switch them off switch them on switch them off again ----sigh--- :zzz: -- if they WERE human they'd be checking out false alarms on a fairly regular basis --)

as it was i was in a completely use less position for a torpedo attack so heaed into the convoy and by that time i had been confirmed as a target and the DD's were starting tto attack-- eventually they killed me but only after i was able to sink a couple of merchants--


when the DD's are as dumb as mine have been they're no point being subtle with the edits--


mind you i surprised by the lack of aggression in the single missions that folks have tested--it may be that this is only a good soloution for convoy escorts where the AI tactics incorporate slow moving and even stationary DD's (the DD's hydrophone only being uber whilst the DD is stationary)
convoy escorts are programmed to periodically stop dead in the water and just listen--
perhaps task force escorts and hunter killer groups don't have the instruction--

the convoy escorts will stop dead in the water turn side onto the convoy and wait at all stop for around 2 minutes periodically-- even if there isn't any sub near by--

task force escorts are relying on the speed of the task force for their main protection--- and hunter killers are relying on their radar for initial detection---

i've been playing the campaign now since it came out and i have never yet managed to get within visual range of a taskforce so im not worried about them so much--hunter killers might be an issue-- but for me it's the convoys that are the back bone of the game--so if they work i'll put up with anything--

[Redwine]

Noise factor = 1.0 Default setting, also on the deaf end of the scale
Noise Factor


________________________RPM current

P noise = Noise Factor * (----------------- - 1)

_________________________RPM prag



RPM prag = percentage of maximum RPM
What doesnt make sense though is according to

http://www.mistari.com.au/shiii/shiii_Sensor_Formulas.htm

Note: If P noise <= 0 then object undetectable.

yet if we set our noise factor to 0 its like quite uber, maybe my math is wrong and im not looking at the equation correctly.



I cant understand well...... i have same problem as you here.

That formula is for our sub noise ...... or i am wrong ?
The noise factor in Hydrophones at Sim.cfg is for DDs ...... i am wong ?

Anyway..... looking at our sub.

Low and Silent Running prop turns are 130, max turns at Flank are 300.

130 is 43.33 % of 300.

Then ..... for Silent running turns :

130/ 43.33 = 3

3 - 1 = 2

Then :

P noise = Noise factor x 2

To have a P Noise equal or lower than 0 (zero) to be undetectable at silent running turns.........

We need to input a Noise Factor zero or negative..... OK, but...

Then ............ we will be undetectable at any otehr RPM even at flank turns...... :hmm:

I am wrong ? :88)

If we input a positive Noise Factor...... we never will be undetectable, because the value will be always > 0, even at half knot turns........... :hmm:

I am wrong ? :hmm:

I cant undestand this formula......

[Redwine]

that's basically it--i'm use-ing the uber effect from the odd sim.cfg entrys to garantue i get detected-- and luckily am finding ways to make that unpredictable --

Store the files a secure place. ;)

ie when the sub meter goes red---the DD's is just suspiciuos (in gameplay terms) last night i was able to sit at scope depth silent running about 3000 metres away from the lead convy escort- the meter was red- the DD was using it's searchlights BUT it wasn't in any way sure where i was ...........

The sthealt meter was red, sure because you was picked-up by radar ..... i am wrong ?



so was slowly creeping along trying to get a fix---other DD's were doing the same--the results was i was able to get within firing range of the merchants in real terms undetected--( heck the DD's have got a right to to their job --they must have had far more fasle alarms than genuine sub contacts--

Well, if you was at silent running it may be real, but you must to be licky to be able to manage your attack at that speed, you must to overpass the convoy and wait for them as a sitting duck.
Plus note in AI_Sensors, sensors has a ceiling, how do you have adjusted those ceilings ? are enought up to detect you at periscope depth ? Try adjusting them to zero......... those false contacts may be due you are in the limit, actives are set at -10m, may be your periscope depth is set at 12 ? I use 13m.

Or may be to a some radar contacts, remember if your scope is under 1m it is not detected, when the waves moves and surface moves, your scope elevation rise and down, may be the cause of those false contacs ? :up:



mind you i surprised by the lack of aggression in the single missions that folks have tested--it may be that this is only a good soloution for convoy escorts where the AI tactics incorporate slow moving and even stationary DD's (the DD's hydrophone only being uber whilst the DD is stationary)


That can be a problem for single mission adjust.... :hmm:



convoy escorts are programmed to periodically stop dead in the water and just listen--
perhaps task force escorts and hunter killer groups don't have the instruction--

the convoy escorts will stop dead in the water turn side onto the convoy and wait at all stop for around 2 minutes periodically-- even if there isn't any sub near by--

task force escorts are relying on the speed of the task force for their main protection--- and hunter killers are relying on their radar for initial detection---

In the mission Barhman, they some times stops to listen, but i dont remember if it was with speciphied settings...... or they do it always, i will take atetion...... :hmm:



i've been playing the campaign now since it came out and i have never yet managed to get within visual range of a taskforce so im not worried about them so much--hunter killers might be an issue-- but for me it's the convoys that are the back bone of the game--so if they work i'll put up with anything--

Undestand, and may be you are right, any way will be great if we can discover a pack of settings giving us a good behavior in both situations, convoy and task force behavior...... may be hard :hmm:

[CB..]

I was wondering if it had something to do with the fact that some are assigned as escorts and some are not in the campaign files.

Maybe when they are escort, they stick to convoy in tight formation but are limited on available actions and when other, they have more free reighns but maybe not look as good as escorted convoy.

If anyone has any ideas on this, I am all ears. Like I say, I do not care how much history is bent as long as I get better game. If I need to assighn hunter groups in early war then so be it.

i' ve been wondering about this too-- some DD's have the escort=false entry in the campaign file--i keep expecting to come across convoys with DD's positioned with the merchants-- i was thinking half heartedly that maybe this was the devs incorporating DD's being delivered from the US to the UK but nor armed or crewed yet-- just a skeleton delivery crew

but i've not see this in game at all-
might be worth testing against a convoy where all the DD's are set to escort=false just to see if anything different happens--

the AI do seem to be capable of some form of basic "thinking" -they way they deal with the sensor set up i have shows that they do change their tactics to try and compensate for the hydrophone feedback being highly unpredictable--one second uber the next nothing-- as they come into and out of the "dead zone" either because they enter the minimum range blind spot or because only the stationary distant DD's can get a proper fix--

the staggerred DC drops is something i've only ever seen with this set up---i' ve seen them drop loads of DC's in a long line behind them as they pass over head--that's normal-- but i've only seen them make three entirely seperate drops on the one dc run with this particular set up--

as they enter the 1000 meter minimum range they drop one load of DC's

then there's a long pause

they drop the next load as they reach the centre of the blind spot

then finally dropp what ever they have left as they leave the blind spot--

somtimes banging of a couple of k-guns for extra bite if they have reloaded them in time (?)

so they do have the ability to adapt a little--instead of dropping 8 DC's bang over head--- they drop 4 wait then another 4-- then pop the k-guns last of all--three distinct and seperate attacks with maybe tthree boat lengths between each drop

as this is not a good tactic against a contact that is "confirmed" and never happens as stock (for me anyhuw) it shows that for wha ever reason the AI is applying some sort of alternative attack method against the more indefinite contact--

if they think they have you nailed they drop the lot in one go

the two different tactics are very distinct and easily seen in game--fascinating to see really-- even if it's nothing of the sort and just a glitch-- it works in gameplay terms--

[gouldjg]

In the same way that CB is maybe looking at the passives so as to almost guarentee the DD,s do something instead of just chugging along.


that's basically it--i'm use-ing the uber effect from the odd sim.cfg entrys to garantue i get detected-- and luckily am finding ways to make that unpredictable --

ie when the sub meter goes red---the DD's is just suspiciuos (in gameplay terms) last night i was able to sit at scope depth silent running about 3000 metres away from the lead convy escort- the meter was red- the DD was using it's searchlights BUT it wasn't in any way sure where i was so was slowly creeping along trying to get a fix---other DD's were doing the same--the results was i was able to get within firing range of the merchants in real terms undetected--( heck the DD's have got a right to to their job --they must have had far more fasle alarms than genuine sub contacts--i hate the way the game uses the DD's like a light switch--- switch them on switch them off switch them on switch them off again ----sigh--- :zzz: -- if they WERE human they'd be checking out false alarms on a fairly regular basis --)

as it was i was in a completely use less position for a torpedo attack so heaed into the convoy and by that time i had been confirmed as a target and the DD's were starting tto attack-- eventually they killed me but only after i was able to sink a couple of merchants--


when the DD's are as dumb as mine have been they're no point being subtle with the edits--


mind you i surprised by the lack of aggression in the single missions that folks have tested--it may be that this is only a good soloution for convoy escorts where the AI tactics incorporate slow moving and even stationary DD's (the DD's hydrophone only being uber whilst the DD is stationary)
convoy escorts are programmed to periodically stop dead in the water and just listen--
perhaps task force escorts and hunter killer groups don't have the instruction--

the convoy escorts will stop dead in the water turn side onto the convoy and wait at all stop for around 2 minutes periodically-- even if there isn't any sub near by--

task force escorts are relying on the speed of the task force for their main protection--- and hunter killers are relying on their radar for initial detection---

i've been playing the campaign now since it came out and i have never yet managed to get within visual range of a taskforce so im not worried about them so much--hunter killers might be an issue-- but for me it's the convoys that are the back bone of the game--so if they work i'll put up with anything--

:yep: :yep: :yep: :yep:

Absolutely,

I am now at that conclusion. Unless someone comes up with ways to alter the DD's intelligence to behave Human or more aggressive around contact reports then I am just going to continue at what I am doing.

I was wondering if I could increase the noise etc of the torpedos to wake DD,s up when I do attack. It may just stop them from carrying on regardles.

I don't care if a electric is supposed to be silent, the game just has something that occasionally stops dd's from investigating attacks on there own ships.

Yes yes yes I know all about the directive to leave straggeling ships behind etc etc in real life but if this has been incorporated into the game then it may be part of our problem.

To be honest, I suspect/hope that improved convoys mod may automattically help me out here with its tight knit formations etc.

I am also eased when I start to play with all clues off as to weather or not I have been detected. It reminds me of that part in Das where he thinks he has the upper on hand on the DD yet its the other way round.

I know that the single missions were speciffically desighned to show the best parts of the game for each situation.

What is happening is the fact that we sometimes play knowing what history was rather than getting into the mindset of the people from that time. In that time, no one was sure of what was happening, they had basic rules of course but at the end of the day it was all about balls, technollogy and half truth based rumours.

At first CB, I thought what you was doing may have been a little too extreme but now I kind of aggree with your way of thought.

As far as noise factor is concerned, I thought this is more to do with effect on own DD ship rather than uboat.

So does anyone know how to make the torps more noticable ingame?

[HEMISENT]

Gouldjg
Just started a campaign mission july 1943 out of Bergen.
Grid AF79, medium seas, daylight, good visibility
Surfaced, visual sighting single hi speed DD @ 6500m, CD to 50m ahead std. Icon green Ship continues on course
Climb to PD & set rudder to make a circular pattern in frt of DD path
2500m distance increase speed to 7kts-icon green
1000m raise periscope-icon green
700m ahead flank/surface the boat-icon green
DD continues on path and I leave the area on the surface
***
Grid AF78,medium seas, dusk, fair visibility
Running surfaced at 8kts, ship spotted @ 7500m.DD approaching brg 325
I stayed surfaced this time no evasive actions just to see what would happen. The DD crossed my bow @ 5000m and continued on
***
Grid AM, medium seas, morning, good visibility
Surfaced 8kts, hdg 270
I'm patrolling area where convoys converge to enter British ports.
5:14 detecting radar signals-icon green
5:21 ship spotted brg 330/hdg NNE-icon green
2400m distance-icon starts to dirty up a bit
2100m distance-icon red
2000m distance-icon fluctuates red to green(DD is now directly of my bow hdg 000 continues on course)
1700m distance-icon red DD continues on course

At this point in time I'm thinking someone painted my boat with an invisibility coating. sort of like Harry Potters's invisibility cloak. Enemy is not even noticing my boat on the surface much less at any depth or speed.
Even tho the icon turned red and stayed there I did not get a "we've been detected" message

At this point in time I'd say that the escort AI was at least capable of detecting me on the surface in your single missions pack even tho their performance left a lot to be desired .
Please advise of any changes I can make.

[CB..]

that's basically it--i'm use-ing the uber effect from the odd sim.cfg entrys to garantue i get detected-- and luckily am finding ways to make that unpredictable --

Store the files a secure place. ;)

ie when the sub meter goes red---the DD's is just suspiciuos (in gameplay terms) last night i was able to sit at scope depth silent running about 3000 metres away from the lead convy escort- the meter was red- the DD was using it's searchlights BUT it wasn't in any way sure where i was ...........

The sthealt meter was red, sure because you was picked-up by radar ..... i am wrong ?



so was slowly creeping along trying to get a fix---other DD's were doing the same--the results was i was able to get within firing range of the merchants in real terms undetected--( heck the DD's have got a right to to their job --they must have had far more fasle alarms than genuine sub contacts--

Well, if you was at silent running it may be real, but you must to be licky to be able to manage your attack at that speed, you must to overpass the convoy and wait for them as a sitting duck.
Plus note in AI_Sensors, sensors has a ceiling, how do you have adjusted those ceilings ? are enought up to detect you at periscope depth ? Try adjusting them to zero......... those false contacts may be due you are in the limit, actives are set at -10m, may be your periscope depth is set at 12 ? I use 13m.

Or may be to a some radar contacts, remember if your scope is under 1m it is not detected, when the waves moves and surface moves, your scope elevation rise and down, may be the cause of those false contacs ? :up:



mind you i surprised by the lack of aggression in the single missions that folks have tested--it may be that this is only a good soloution for convoy escorts where the AI tactics incorporate slow moving and even stationary DD's (the DD's hydrophone only being uber whilst the DD is stationary)


That can be a problem for single mission adjust.... :hmm:



convoy escorts are programmed to periodically stop dead in the water and just listen--
perhaps task force escorts and hunter killer groups don't have the instruction--

the convoy escorts will stop dead in the water turn side onto the convoy and wait at all stop for around 2 minutes periodically-- even if there isn't any sub near by--

task force escorts are relying on the speed of the task force for their main protection--- and hunter killers are relying on their radar for initial detection---

In the mission Barhman, they some times stops to listen, but i dont remember if it was with speciphied settings...... or they do it always, i will take atetion...... :hmm:


i've been playing the campaign now since it came out and i have never yet managed to get within visual range of a taskforce so im not worried about them so much--hunter killers might be an issue-- but for me it's the convoys that are the back bone of the game--so if they work i'll put up with anything--

Undestand, and may be you are right, any way will be great if we can discover a pack of settings giving us a good behavior in both situations, convoy and task force behavior...... may be hard :hmm:


on the sub meter going red -- i approached the convoy submerged the meter went from green to red WHILST i was submerged -- flat calm no possibility of any radar contact---


on the sensor hieght -- all AI sensor dat entrys are AS STOCK other than the maximum and minimum distances on the hydrophones --(HOW MANY TIMES have i said this :cry:)

yup the stock convoy escorts are programmed to stop dead in the water and listen periodically -- this NOT a new behaviuor caused by my set up---my set up is designed to EXPLOIT this behaviour


on the sub meter thing your just going to have to accept that this meter is not reliable when used with this sort of set up-and for me this is a VAST improvement on the stock 100% UBER (yes i did say UBER) detection meter--this way it is simply a vague indication of wether you have been detected or not--and is there fore far more interesting-- ---stop trying to control the game---- and start trying to take what it allready does and make it work for you-- :up:

[gouldjg]

Hemisent,

1. Fast moving escorts will not read hydrophones so you can go at flank under the water and they would as in history miss you by miles unless looking for you.

2. I have yet to play with the visual settings so have not yet bothered looking at that part yet but trust me, I will.

3. What you can do is turn up the speed factor in the sim.cfg. Look here

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.0

you will notice that the game has set 15 by default. I think they tried this so people will not start saying, "man that DD should never had detected me blah blah blah"

I bet if you set this to 25 or even 30, you will not be so lucky running at periscope depth or lower. The DDs will not have a limit with its hydrophones.

Personally, I am thinking of raising this again as when I was testing.

Try happy times mission with 15 and you will see that the escorting DD will pick you up with hydrophones as you get closer etc.


The rest is unresolved as I am still working on it and weighing up what to do.

EDIT

The speed factor is how fast the ship is going not the sub though I guess most know this.

I just wondered about adding hydrophones to certain merchants hmmmmmmm I wonder what this would do especially if I increase the range.

With the randomness of convoy build, maybe the odd convoy would just happen to include one of these and as I am approaching too fast etc etc, he may, raise a silent alarm and a DD may come over snooping.

[CB..]

What is happening is the fact that we sometimes play knowing what history was rather than getting into the mindset of the people from that time. In that time, no one was sure of what was happening, they had basic rules of course but at the end of the day it was all about balls, technollogy and half truth based rumours.



brilliant mate -- that in a nut shell is my entire take on realism in any ww2 war sim--- and why i have absolutely no time for the "realism police" what so ever (you may have noticed :-j )

they want it all tied down to facts and figures-- they in effect want to know things that they could not have possibly have known at the time--no uncertainty-- no guess work--no intuition--- no game-- just roleplaying being uber commander of the month--i have no respect for them at all-mainly because they allways come on so heavy handed- when if fact they just haven't thought about realism with any insight at all--

i suppose a good example of this sort of thing was the metox radar ( on the snorkel head--have i got that right?)
apaprently a captured u-boat man was left in the cell and was allowed to over hear an RAF pilot who was talking about how radar on the snorkel was detectable by aircraft---the u-boat man was then allowed to escape--and this incident apparently was partly responsible for metox being removed from the u-boats when it was in actually fact a very effective defense against patroling aircraft and an aid to convoy location etc---

and he!! he!! :D if THIS information gathered from a book about the war IS innacurate ,OR I have misterpreted it---then this only goes to prove the point rather than disprove it--even NOW the information we have available isn't allways reliable--or is easily misinterpereted ---BACK THEN? --well....!

i rest the case !! :know: :yep: :up:


on the torps launch thing-- last patrol - my detection meter went from full green to full red when i launched a spread of torpedos--
this may have been co-incidence but

[Redwine]

on the sensor hieght -- all AI sensor dat entrys are AS STOCK other than the maximum and minimum distances on the hydrophones --(HOW MANY TIMES have i said this :cry:)

Sorry, i cant have in my mind the settings of everybody......

You are so stressed, try with a pack of beer and a beautiful girl this weekend !! :-j :-j ;)

If you have default settings, then ..... if i not remember bad, all sensors, pasives and actives had a ceiling of -10, try putting it to zero, to improve surface detection. :up:

Just a suggestion, nothing more, you are free to try or not. :up:

[Ducimus]

Well so far ive only done one convoy attack with the settings ive last mentioned. With a crystal clear, calm day, 0 winds, i (probably needlessly since im kinda testign) tried my best to avoid detection.


I got off 4 fish at a T2 and T3 at 3000 meters, at about 4:50 in AM game time, so i had dawn grey light conditions. Perfect time to attack really. Both the T2 and T3 went down. Oriiginaly i was heading into the convoy at 2 knots, but decided to reverse course and head out of the convoy and try and set myself up for the get away to do another end round attack.

It was at this point that one of the rear flanking escort noticed me as i exited the convoy. My aspect angle he had my broadsides. I was doing 2 knots or ahead slow at silent speed i dont remembe which. But im GUESSING he was about 3K meters away when he did notice me.

Along he came, pinging me the whole way. At this point i starting turning my boat to him. Im guessing when i got him to bearing 330 or 340 my meter went from red to green. My guess is my aspect angle screwed up his contact. At about this time, the pinging just stopped. He lost contact. He made two passs wich were close, another one which wasnt so close (he was guessing), and then he gave up and went away.

All this though, happened the instant he lost contact. (althoguh come to thnk of it, i dont remember if i ever got the " weve been detected sir" message or not.. it was late. Anyway o this end im reducing the min passive to 300 or 200 and see what happends.

Also, does that variable CB use

"aspect=0"

Relate to this at all? Maybe ill plug that one in too.

[HEMISENT]

Gouldjg
A bit of success here. I changed the speed factor= to 25-everything else as is. Tried the happy times mission. I was able to approach the convoy at pd/2kts with no problem. Finally got my firing solution and let loose a spread of 4 fish all set for impact @ 5 m @ 3000m distance then continued on to see what would happen.
18:03 impact-a large ship in the center of the convoy took 3 hits and pretty much vaporized. From that time I was beginning to get noticed by the escorts. Pinging in the distance/icon dirties up a bit. A DD came from out of nowhere heading directly for me brg 90deg all of a sudden he changes course abruptly and disappears no clue why as he had me cold. Anyway to make a long story short.
I've been getting repeated attacks by a Flower Corvette and another escort. The flower shows signs of being relatively aggresive but his pal is next to worthless. Regardless this is a huge improvement over earlier tests. I find the flower capable of making both concentrated attacks when I get the "detected" message and then when he's lost me he will just take a guess and drop 2 or 3 cans. The game is still in progress-just took a break for a bit.
PS. regarding the earlier discussion of the attacker changing course everytime the boat does.
The flower was making a hi speed pass at my 270, icon full red, we are definately detected. I order all stop, back emergency (I love this manuever and do it quite often) and the flower changes course as my boat reverses. As soon as I see this I order ahead flank and the flower attempts to change course again. By this time he is right on top and dropping a full load on me. Luckily my depth is 160m and I was able to scoot away. There is no way he could have been able to tell that I had reversed direction twice
My findings so far: in this mission I am encountering one very aggresive flower corvette capable of making good, logical attacks yet also taking educated guesses. I have one incredibly useless DD who is just blasting holes in the water. I have the first DD who was coming directly for me pinging like mad he had me cold at pd then for no reason changes course and disappears(???).
I believe this mission is set in 1940 or 41(?) that may account for early technology of the escort ASW gear and tactics. Mission still in progress but unless something changes I can see this going on and on-
Anyway this is definately an improvement. I think for comparison sake I will disable your passive test setup and enable CB's and run the whole thing all over again.

[CB..]

on the sensor hieght -- all AI sensor dat entrys are AS STOCK other than the maximum and minimum distances on the hydrophones --(HOW MANY TIMES have i said this :cry:)

Sorry, i cant have in my mind the settings of everybody......

You are so stressed, try with a pack of beer and a beautiful girl this weekend !! :-j :-j ;)

If you have default settings, then ..... if i not remember bad, all sensors, pasives and actives had a ceiling of -10, try putting it to zero, to improve surface detection. :up:

Just a suggestion, nothing more, you are free to try or not. :up:

i see ...then why comment?

one thing of interest to try is TT's new sound file tweaks in the mini tweaker--- you can increase the maximum range for the sounds files etc--- if increasing the range that destroyer screws are heard actually affects the AI hydrophones then this will effectively mask the u-boat whilst one is close by---depends on wether it is purely an audio effect or wether the game reads this as sensor information allso--

this of course could be the answer to everyones problems---

if your having problems with uber DD's reduce the audible range of the subs screws-- and increase it if they have trouble detecting you--if the AI sensors "HEAR" the sound files literally-rather than it being calculated seperately from the actual in game sound effects---then this is a dead simple way to sort it out---i hazzard a guess this will not effect silent runing--depends on how exactly that works--

[caspofungin]

certainly worth a try.

[Ducimus]

So far ive been doing 1942, improved convies with crew rating 3's.

Detection, im guessing, isn't a problem. They can most certainly detect me if:

a.) I choose to pilot the boat outside the parmaters i have set. (IE be at slow and silent within 1K meters = red meter. at 1 or 2 knotts i get a green meter.)

or

b.) I happen to get in their way. I had a convoy zig onto my track and next thing i know im dead center of an oncoming convoy. The front guartd went by me at first (me being at slient with all engines stopped trying to make like a big hole in the water), once he passed me i thought i was fine, when he started zigged as part of his search pattern after he passed me all of a sudden im getting pinged just like that.


The most disappointing thing is the AI's behavior despite their increased chance to detect me. Watching them, its almost as if each one is assigned a different sector of the convoy, and each escort sticks to its sector, no matter what. Perhaps this is intenitonal in 1942? By 1943 i expect that to stop. Which is when im going to run my next test.

Another thing ive noticed is that in campign, the escorts seem to behavre more defensivly. In otherwords, unless you get right next to them, they only seem to respond as if to beat you off the convoy with a stick. Once they chase you off, they resume their station of defensive guard.

On the other hand they behave VERY aggreissivly in the U505 mission, and herein lies a point. IN the U505 mission your attacking a hunter/killer group, not a defensive convoy guard. The former is out to kill YOU to begin with, the latter is only there to keep the convoy going. Not to kill you. What im saying there is im begining to think theres a fundamental difference in the Escort AI, depending on the paramters of the situation. Im also thinking theres a fundamental difference betwen campign and singlemission AI.

What i think we need here is a single convoy mission set up exactly what youd find in campign to include your appraoch, and see if the AI behaves any different then in campign, at a given year.

Im going to replace all my crew ratings with 4 and try 1942 again and see if i notice any difference in behavior, and then again in 43.

Pin point drops we can fix, deaf DD's we can fix, but those are only part of the problems, the big problem could be the AI itself. Campagin just seems inheirantly act different and its kidna disappointing.

If it turns out the AI itself is the last key in the puzzle, i dunno if if that can be modded or not. If it is part of the puzzle and if it can't be moded, i think im going to give up, start a career in 1939 with an IXB with the fixes i have in pace, and play it out to 45 and sink an ungodly amount of tonnage out of spite. Then unistall the game and play soemthing else for awhile. :damn:

[Col7777]

As for the sound of your sub, I hated the engine noise and changed my engine sound file a long time ago, I forgot all about this till you mentioned it CB, but I stll get detected no problem.

I read you post CB about the DD's behaviour when they keep stopping for a sound check and when you are detected how one waits while the other makes a charge in your direction.
The one waiting is obviously telling the charger your position, then they swap roles, is this the noise factor or the speed settings in the cfg files?

[Col7777]

Another thing may be we are missing, we keep saying (ESCORTS) but do you think the type of DD also makes a difference, I'm thinking again what CB said, he got hounded by a corvette but the other DD seemed a bit docile, may be his equipment wasn't up to scratch, just a thought.

Edited: I meant the DD not you CB. :-j

[Ducimus]

Well there is a diference between DD and a DE.

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/types.html?type=Destroyer

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/types.html?type=Destroyer+Escort

The uber escorts i beleive are DE's.

[caspofungin]

this is very frustrating. i can get the game to have uberhydrophones and uberasdic, or crappy hydrophones and crappy asdic, but not crappy hydrophones and uberasdic, which is what i'd like. hydrophones can be limited by max range, but then you can still be picked up at silent. if i play w/ default sim (ie no named entries) and tweak it eg w/ Ducimus' noise/wave values, then hydrophone has "better" limitations, but pinging won't start until escort is at v close range.

on a somewhat separate topic--
the escort ai has always been relatively aggressive in my games. torp a ship, expect an escort "now for the pay off" as they say. they may not detect me, but they will come looking. even if there's a straggler left behind, literally 20k from the rest of the convoy, if i torp him, an escort will detach and come sniffing about. is that v different to what you guys have experienced?

[Ducimus]

the escort ai has always been relatively aggressive in my games. torp a ship, expect an escort "now for the pay off" as they say. they may not detect me, but they will come looking. even if there's a straggler left behind, literally 20k from the rest of the convoy, if i torp him, an escort will detach and come sniffing about. is that v different to what you guys have experienced?

Exactly that. My problem is, they never find me. Of course now that ive raised their passive sonar ablities so they can hear a sub captain so much as fart anywhere within 3000 meters , they only seem to find me if they catch the broadside of the sub at 3000 meters or less.

They always run off in seperate directions for a look see. NEVER where im curertnly at. So long as they do that, i will not be caught unless i want to be caught. EDIT: AND THIS is the difference between a mission like U505 and a campign convoy encounter. The DE's in the U505 mission, ALWAYS come looking in the right area to find you. IN campaign, they seem to look in the right areas.

[caspofungin]

how far are you getting pinged at, and what are your ai_sensors values for asdic ranges?

[Ducimus]

how far are you getting pinged at, and what are your ai_sensors values for asdic ranges?

Only changes i made to active sonar was a minium distance or 170, and i dumbled down the sensitivity of one of the actives from 0.7 to 0.6. Everythign else i left the same.

Same with passive sonar, i only changed the min distance to 400 (currently 300) everything else i left the same excepting my sim.cfg changes.


I have been pinged at about 1200 meters (which is normal)

On one encounter in campaign a escort starting pinging at about 3000 -4000 meters away. Thats not saying he pinged ME at that range, but he started looking around with active. He did find me. The way he behaved he heard someting on passive, immediatly started to look aggressivly, and i guess zeroed in on me with passive and then with active. The fun thing was he was pning the whole time he was looking for me. This i the escort i changed my aspect on and pointed my bow to. Once he lost me on passive (400 meter min range) and active (170 meter range) he made abotu 3 or 4 half hearted runs and went back to the convy. Once he lost contact, it was like, "I dont want to play with you anymore!"

[gouldjg]

I think we are approaching one of the cruxes of the problem here.

We can improve our chances to be detected but the same game rules are applying as far as the Ships are concerned.

Our min ranges maybe making them not be as clever as we thought it would. Maybe, we need to look at other things also.

They will snoop and if we have gone silent etc, then they will go back to normal rules. Any ideas????

Rules of DD should now be looked at,

I think we all know how hard it is going to be to changes escort DDs i.e. the manual changes will take ages and thats only after we have proved there is a distinct difference in there modes or settings in campaign files.

I guess I am going have to look at doings some single mission test to see what happens with different settings and different ships.

With regards to there attacking,

We are left with the problem of having min ranges to stop uberness,

My Hydro min & Max range works fine for me i.e. no uber, I can stay silent and not be detected even if DD is close bye, If I am silly, I am detected at 6000 mtre.

I although have got the same min ranges as you guys and therfore maybe suffering the same problem, They snoop do a couple of half harded attacks and then shoot off.

I originnally wanted a min range for actives but am beginning to wonder if in fact I should not have this, and just reduce other things to make them less uber at pin point but more active in attacks.

The only thing is finding that magic setting that would allow me to escape the locks. i.e. bearing, aspect if it works, other tweaks. If only I could guarentee that I could have escape plans with actives then I am made.

This is why I am eager to try Redwines or anyones tweaks in this area.

Hemisent has noticed this which is a good thing really allthough it was passive ranges feedback and pin point feedback I was after, not ai feedback cos I knew there was still problems with that part.

So, it is down to knowing what makes the DD click into modes. Could it be so simple that it just requires more setting to change some to hunter convoys etc etc.

Edit

excuse the terrible spelling, the kids are pecking me of the pc.

[CB..]

As for the sound of your sub, I hated the engine noise and changed my engine sound file a long time ago, I forgot all about this till you mentioned it CB, but I stll get detected no problem.

I read you post CB about the DD's behaviour when they keep stopping for a sound check and when you are detected how one waits while the other makes a charge in your direction.
The one waiting is obviously telling the charger your position, then they swap roles, is this the noise factor or the speed settings in the cfg files?

this is down to the speedfactor i think Col---with the weird sim.cfg entrys the destroyers etc can only get a hydrophone contact when they are more or less stationary---but oh boy is is a good hydrophone contact lol ubered to heck and back --

they seem to do this sort of thing normally even when the game is completely stock- so i thought that would be something i'd like to get going to the full--as it's at least entertaining and interesting DD behaviour--

your sim cfg idea :up: enabled me to give them a really excellent hydrophone that would make the stationary escort uber and the attacking one blind--using the speedfactor= 0.5 ( 0.5 knots max speed above that the sensor goes dead)
luckily this works really well and the AI seem to thrive on it--as it is just asking them to do what they would normally do--but making it a much more vital part of their behaviour--

roger that on the engine noise i did the same thing and quitened down the internal engine noise because i wanted to hear the DD's propellors as they went overhead--that sonar guy doing his constant reports is nice but often he doesn't pick the closest DD and gets annoying after a while-- in fact if you set all the internal sub sounds to silence engines etc ambient and so on you really can hear the DD's by panning the view around--bit weird but actually quite good fun--

i was wondering tho with TT's mini tweaker being able now to adjust the ranges at which you heard the sounds --increae the range of an aircrafts sounds and you hear it from much further away for example--

if you were to increase the range the subs screws were heard would this mean that the DD's would now hear from that range or does the game noty work like that?

he he i wonder about my equipment sometimes so i dunno which is what lol!! :hmm: funny thing about that corvette was that the stationary DD that was feeding it info was one of the american uber DD's you sometimes meet--so it had the strongest sensors-- not sure if this mattered might have done-- be pretty intelligent if the AI adapted and told the DD with the strongest sensors to do the monitoring whilst another did the attacking--would be interesting if it did--dunno tho


on the DD or DE thing i'm not sure --if anything their top speeds play a major role--not sure what else--might be something waitingto be discovered along those lines posibly down to the Class number in the sea ship cfg files--each type of ship has it's own class number--


with this stationary uber- attacking blind set up i have begun to notice during night encounters that the DD's seem to be use-ing star shells far more often than i'm used to see-ing it's normally so rare for me that i would wonder what on earth was going on when i saw one previuosly--

now i'm see-ing the Dd's fire star shells as a matter of course---

the detection meter will go red the DD will sit and listen for a while then fire a star shell over my approximaite position-- somtimes other DD's around the convoy will join in sometimes not-- so that's a nice addition to the night time atmosphere--they don't rush over to the area either they just fire the star shell and monitor the area-- unless i break from silent running of course and start waving at them -- in this set up a full red sub meter just means the DD's are on duty not that they know where you are--

[Col7777]

That's great info CB thanks, it answered all my questions. :up:

[Redwine]

I am arriving to a aceptable balance but still having problems.


U-505 :

I can run U-505 modified now, starting in front of the battle group.

DDs still lethal, and very hard to shake off, they do not let me to approach to the carrier.

Detect me at 1/3 and above not at SR. Enough far to dont let me to aproach the carrier. When one of them detect me it call the others.
So hard to shake them, but finally after 3 decoys i can shake....... can i ?

One of them detect me when we was sacping so far, and the hunt start up a new time, he pick-up me and call the others.....all five over me a new time.

Hard to shake, but using decoys and silent running, was posible.
Long time to shake them, and with severe damage, hit 3 times by helgedogs, and evade some helgedog shots by lucky, and damaged 3 times by DC.

Hard but playable.


Happy Times :

This mission always was easy for me with my initial files and settings prior this job in this topic.

I dont like imposible missions, but dont like sitting duck hunt neither.

I start going back, to the incomming DDs, then i let them to see me, here one problem, they seems stupid in radar and sight vision.
So near, they shoot me by cannon, about 2200m.

Crash dive, and silent running, now pointing to the convoy.
The Flower corvette looks to agresive, the corvette and one DD, make about six runs over me drooping DCs.

I go into the convoy, go to periscope depth, look for the tankers and C2, sink many of them.

In this job, i was detected many times, shooted, depthcharged, and six ram attempts, only one cause damage.

Damaged 3 times by depth charges, and by only one ram action, severe damaged but repaired.

Run out of torps, run outside the convoy, and when they go far, rise periscope, i look a T2 smoking, surface the boat to reload and aproach the T2 at 2200m.

Here the interesting...........

The T2 detect me, look at my minisubit become red, i torp it and destroy, then go to the convoy a new time.

I dont know if the T2 call for help, or if the explosion call for them, but 2 DDs were incoming on me.

I submerge, and put silent running, looking by periscope, when click on the ship icon on the map, one of them has not active sonar, only pasive sensor.

May be by default, may be he loss it in a ramming action ?

They hunt on me, very hard, and very precise :hmm: , damaged two times more, i put the external camera and..... what ?

3 more ships incoming to the party circle arund me, they was incoming as in a train, one after the other as train cars.

But with my actual setting i was so quited at silent running, and mange to scape a little bit away, prior the 3 new ships arrive, if not sure i was done with 5 of them over me.

Finally i was safe just at midnight, 00:00.


Here my questions :

Who test on this mission ?

I have a problem with this mission...... DDs seems to not detect my periscope.

They only detect my scope visually and at very short range, and start to shoot it.

Their radar seems to dont works..... :hmm:

may be correct for that age ?

or i need to increase the radar sensivity or min surface ?

Some radars has min surface detection in 0.03 m2, but another has 1.5 m2, may be they are equiped with old radars and my scope surface exposed dont reach 1.5 m2 ?

Do you have the same beahvior in scope detection in this mission ?

:up:

[gouldjg]

Just a quickie

[Group 1.Unit 5]
Name=USS Jenks
Class=DEBuckley
Type=3 What is this for?? Different ships sometimes the same number type
Origin=American
Side=1
Commander=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19430101
DeleteOnLastWaypoint=true
GameEntryDate=19440515
GameEntryTime=0
GameExitDate=19451231
GameExitTime=0
EvolveFromEntryDate=false
Long=-2316580.000000
Lat=2582330.000000
Height=0.000000
Heading=0.000000
Speed=10.000000
CrewRating=4
DelayMin=0
ReportPosMin=-1
ReportPosProbability=100
RandStartRadius=0.000000

[HEMISENT]

Another thing may be we are missing, we keep saying (ESCORTS) but do you think the type of DD also makes a difference, I'm thinking again what CB said, he got hounded by a corvette but the other DD seemed a bit docile, may be his equipment wasn't up to scratch, just a thought. :-j

I just completed the Happy times mission round 2 using CB's setup this time as previously posted. I noticed two differences between the missions.
Obsevation #1;
Gouldjg's setup the Flower Corvette was reasonably aggresive while the Hunt Class Destroyer was only burning up fossil fuels/only 2 enemy ships participating. I felt very secure at evading with little or no damage at 160m
With CB's setup The Flower was extremely aggressive not exactly dropping pin point but very scarey nonetheless. The Hunt was not as aggressive but definately a player. Also at different times there were 3 enemy ships involved. I very much was in trouble hunted to 170m and looking for more depth.
Observation #2
Gouldjg's setup the stealth meter would flicker from green to dirty green when perhaps someone was getting a whiff. A lot of brown/red/brown as I evaded. My twisting and turning+on and off Silent Running actually seemed to have a benefit. I believed it definately had an effect on the way the AI hunted me.
CB's setup the stealth meter went solid red when the nearest DD approached from my 90deg just as I was setting up my shot. The exact distance was 1500m, I was at PD, 2 kts at SR. Stealth meter stayed solid red the entire time-no variation except a couple times the Flower passed directly over me. It went green for just a flicker then solid red. seemed about the angle directly down from his forward turret.

CB-Do you have any updated settings I can plug in.
Right now I think I kind of like certain aspects of both.

Where do I find the names/designations of the AI hydrophones and what years they came into use?

[Der Teddy Bar]

What im saying there is im begining to think theres a fundamental difference in the Escort AI, depending on the paramters of the situation.
Yes that is correct, I quote an e-mail from earlier this year in April...

"However, there is currently indeed a limit to how many escorts will comit to a single contact... which will be addressed"

I do not know what addressed meant, as I never bothered to ask. It would be my assumption that this was not addressed.

Regarding the stock happy time escort, if they were any more retarded I swear they have a 'D' on their bow :rotfl: A poor mission to test on.

[gouldjg]

Another thing may be we are missing, we keep saying (ESCORTS) but do you think the type of DD also makes a difference, I'm thinking again what CB said, he got hounded by a corvette but the other DD seemed a bit docile, may be his equipment wasn't up to scratch, just a thought. :-j

I just completed the Happy times mission round 2 using CB's setup this time as previously posted. I noticed two differences between the missions.
Obsevation #1;
Gouldjg's setup the Flower Corvette was reasonably aggresive while the Hunt Class Destroyer was only burning up fossil fuels/only 2 enemy ships participating. I felt very secure at evading with little or no damage at 160m
With CB's setup The Flower was extremely aggressive not exactly dropping pin point but very scarey nonetheless. The Hunt was not as aggressive but definately a player. Also at different times there were 3 enemy ships involved. I very much was in trouble hunted to 170m and looking for more depth.
Observation #2
Gouldjg's setup the stealth meter would flicker from green to dirty green when perhaps someone was getting a whiff. A lot of brown/red/brown as I evaded. My twisting and turning+on and off Silent Running actually seemed to have a benefit. I believed it definately had an effect on the way the AI hunted me.
CB's setup the stealth meter went solid red when the nearest DD approached from my 90deg just as I was setting up my shot. The exact distance was 1500m, I was at PD, 2 kts at SR. Stealth meter stayed solid red the entire time-no variation except a couple times the Flower passed directly over me. It went green for just a flicker then solid red. seemed about the angle directly down from his forward turret.

CB-Do you have any updated settings I can plug in.
Right now I think I kind of like certain aspects of both.

Where do I find the names/designations of the AI hydrophones and what years they came into use?

:yep: :yep: :yep: :yep:

Absolutely,

My settings are at the moment, only really for passive approach to convoys.

It works as in if I was at PD and going flank, they would pick me up being silly.

I have not yet tried to deal with the DD's attacking me and ways of keeping them interested in me without being too uber.

What we need is ways to make other DD's behave as good as this persistant sod.

How??????

Der Teddy just mentioned a clue that this may have been known but maybe not addressed.

Guys, I am confident that could get the sensors to behave as we want, in any fashion etc. This part is all minor tweaking and when I come to do it, I am confident it does play as it should in game.

What I am more interested in now, is getting the ships to behave in their reactions to their sensors.

Some behave intelligent and some dumb,

Ok, we may be able to boost their sensors to make dumb ones appear to act clever and maybe this is going to be the best we get for a while.

Either way it is a improvement,

I think we need a little brain storming on DD's for a while, leaving sensors out of the picture but not dispelling with possible sensor cheats all the same.

I mean, If I have to, I will find the clever ones and then redo the whole convoy make up.

[CB..]

CB-Do you have any updated settings I can plug in.
Right now I think I kind of like certain aspects of both.

Where do I find the names/designations of the AI hydrophones and what years they came into use?

only changes i have made as i have gone along was to REDUCE all the NAMED hydrophone max distances by 4000 metres from their stock max distances --that's SUBTRACT 4000 metres off the stock max distances for the named hydrophones sensors

this with the ubered sim.cfg effect AND the huge minimum distance and max speedfactor at 0.5 knots--

that's it really-- with these dramatically reduced max ranges--you get a constant change in the detection meter changes colour pretty much all the time--and the DD's are very dangerous --

the constant effect of the DD's losing contact with you and other gaingin contact on you tends to perhaps by pass the limited number of escorts per contact-- in that it draws different groups of DD's into the area and once there they will start attacking -- shift work if you like--
last campaign patrol i got absolutely blanket bombed with 7 DD's all dropping DC's around me--- hugely dangerous and unpredictable--
but it was only as i drifted out the back of the convoy that i got nailed--

by that corvette and american DD combination-- i'd survived the main event and got killed by the trailer lol--

if you go to the data/SEA folder and look in the DD's folders at the SNS file it will list the sensors and show which sensor is used during which periods--

one trick would be to use the sensors from the uber american DD's for all the brit Dd's as well ( a simple notepad edit job) OR alternatively to just use the late war sensors for the whole war and see how that went for you-- have tried all of this before i must admit tho--

heres the fletchers sensor file

[Sensor 1]
NodeName=O01
LinkName=AI_Visual
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231

[Sensor 2]
NodeName=H01
LinkName=QCeP
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19430101

[Sensor 3]
NodeName=H01
LinkName=QClP
StartDate=19430101
EndDate=19451231

[Sensor 4]
NodeName=N01
LinkName=QCeA
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19430101

[Sensor 5]
NodeName=N01
LinkName=QClA
StartDate=19430101
EndDate=19451231

[Sensor 6]
NodeName=R01
LinkName=NULL
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19400101

[Sensor 7]
NodeName=R01
LinkName=TypeSC
StartDate=19400101
EndDate=19420601

[Sensor 8]
NodeName=R01
LinkName=TypeSG
StartDate=19420601
EndDate=19440101

[Sensor 9]
NodeName=R01
LinkName=TypeSS
StartDate=19440101
EndDate=19451231

[Sensor 10]
NodeName=D01
LinkName=NULL
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231

[Sensor 11]
NodeName=C01
LinkName=NULL
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231



/////////

you can see what to do--

[caspofungin]

i'm not sure what makes the us sensors so uber -- looking at the values in ai_sensors, they have less range (sonar/hydrophone) and more limited bearings, if i recall correctly.

can anone think of a way to make dd's only get bearing info from hydrophones?

[Der Teddy Bar]

i'm not sure what makes the us sensors so uber -- looking at the values in ai_sensors, they have less range (sonar/hydrophone) and more limited bearings, if i recall correctly.

can anone think of a way to make dd's only get bearing info from hydrophones?
A stab in the dark, a wild guess, maybe it's using a different AI?

[CB..]

he he! i finally realised that i allready knew the answer to the puzzle regarding the inclusion of generic AI_sensors in the AI_sensors.dat as well as named specific sensor--

it's because there are generic un named vessels available for inclusion in missions campaign etc what difference this makes or even if it's of any vast use i dunno-- but it clears one question up anyway--

some of the available generic warships are as follows (there's a more complete list some-where)

type 8=escort carrier
type 11 =battleship
type 9 =fleet carrier
type 6 =light cruiser
type 13 =auxilary cruiser
type 4 =destroyer
type 3 =destroyer escort
type 2 =frigate
type 1 =corvette

and can be written into the missions campaigns like this--

[RndGroup 166.RndUnit 3]
Type=4
Origin=British
Side=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19390101
No=1
Escort=True
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=3


(note that there is no named class entry just a generic type entry
ie; Class=DDClemson etc)

this explains(?) the inclusion of the generic AI_hydrophone sonar etc sensors in the AI_sensors.dat--

these sensors are used for the "no name" generic vessels--

there aren't a huge amount of these generic DD's in the normal campaign (if any?)

but it's more semi usefull info

as stock the most agressive british "escorts" for me anyhuw were the black swan frigates--
these are listed as type=2
if the game will accept type=2 used for normal destroyers escorts etc
(ie; it is a flexible AI instruction to behave in a certain fashion rather than it being essentail to have the the correct type number for each vessel)
then it might allow for some extra testing--making a DD behave like a DE or vice versa--by changing it's type number in the mission/campaign file--

if not it'll just crash the game or do nowt--

this might explain why my generic escort carriers i added to some of the convoys like this

[RndGroup 166.RndUnit 3]
Type=8
Origin=British
Side=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19390101
No=1
Escort=false
SpawnProbability=50
CrewRating=3


ping me as i get close to them--so it obviously has been automatically equiped with sonar as part of it's generic set up--there being no specific folder containing sensor cfg or equipment loud outs etc--generic vessels get what they're given etc etc

is it just me or has the site been a night-mare to get into recently? took 3 hours trying to-day before the forums or any element of subsim.com would load-- even the google cached pages for subsim.com wouldn't load--scrub that Neal mentions that there's been some sever out-ages recently so that covers it--


i've had a dig thru the warship sensor files and can't find any escort that's equiped with the QGAP hydrophone-- might be worth testing this sensor on in game vessels to see how it performs- or wether it has any interesting qualitys

[gouldjg]

Well done CB,

Its a great start,

Agree about the frigate,

Had my suspicions type may show something into the puzzle.

Also having a hell of a time trying to log on to this site.

Lets just pray, something good comes from it.

Will speak later as it is kids day on PC. I get no word edgeways with the other half.

I really do hope you can find ways to manipulate this without having to manually change each one.

Later I will try in the single missions to change ship types, even for the named ones. Who Knows?????

Or

Do you have any specific way that we should be approaching this

[HEMISENT]

Also having a hell of a time trying to log on to this site.


Yeah me too, the last four days it takes numerous attempts to get here
I've been trying on and off for 3 hours and just now got on.
I thought maybe it was just me.

[gouldjg]

First test,

Turned all type 3 escorts to type 4 on 505

Result = Crash :( :( .

However I have not yet relieved them from escort duties so will try that and get back on while I can :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

OK, for some reason this group does not have settings that allow to disable the escort command.

I am pretty dumb in this area guys, so expect some stupid suggestions from me as usual.

Can we in any of the ship files find out how to change what ship should be what so we can edit it.?

I am lost :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :cry:

I feel so close but hit by a brick wall.

I need a hero here.

[CB..]

Well done CB,


Do you have any specific way that we should be approaching this

cheers..

one additional thought might be that the game might work in the same fashion as SH2

ie the different countrys have different AI routines--

so examining the SIDE=0 entry

[RndGroup 166.RndUnit 3]
Type=4
Origin=British
Side=0 <------------here
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19390101
No=1
Escort=True
SpawnProbability=100
CrewRating=3


might allso be use-full--- i noticed previously that the escorts don't allways carry the same side entry as the convoy it self

looking at the ROSTER/defside.cfg

here's brief excerpt

; side 0 - neutral
; side 1 - allies
; side 2 - axis

[SideEntry 1]
Country=British
Side=0
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19390902

[SideEntry 2]
Country=British
Side=1
StartDate=19390903
EndDate=19450825

[SideEntry 3]
Country=British
Side=0
StartDate=19450826
EndDate=19451231

[SideEntry 4]
Country=American
Side=0
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19411208

[SideEntry 5]
Country=American
Side=1
StartDate=19411209
EndDate=19450825


shows how the american side alters during the war--
all well and accurate and so on-- BUT the campaign.rnd
doesn't allways follow this rule--american and british escorts being assigned as NEUTRAL (side=0) yet still attacking--
regardless of the in game date--etc

plus going into the roster/british/sea folder
and opening the cfg files gives a possible concrete way to alter the type entrys to match any changes made in your missions etc and might help with any problems this creates

brief excerpt from the huntIII cfg

[UnitClass]
ClassName=DDHuntIII
UnitType=4
AppearanceDate=19410601
DisappearanceDate=19460101
DisplayName=BR DD Hunt III


changing both these entrys to the desired type might get past any "check" the game does when loading a mission etc---that's if it has any effect worth a damn anyway--


so if either the type or the side controls in any way the AI behaviuor of the vessels then it might be just a matter of editing this to see what occurs--

if a specific type or side setting does work obviuosly better than the stock set up then a simple search and replace job in wordpad will get the edit job done in a minute or two for the entire campaign file

deleting all the class entrys would allso be simple to test by replacing every instance of the word
class
with
;class

tho not every class of vessel for every nationality has it's generic equivilent
it is possible to add the full range of generic vessels to all the nations by adding the vessels to the nations sea folder--Col worked that one out i can't remember the exact trick--

but in a mission rather than the campaign this should be ok to test against only british and american shipping ( both sides have the full list of generic vessels/aircraft etc available--)

so then it's just play and see i suppose