Destroyers Discussion (getting rid of pin point drops)

[gouldjg]

I am in need of all and any info relating to peoples opinion on DD behaviour.

At the moment I think they are Screwed up too much with the one minute they are dumb and then the pin point dropping of DC.

I think it is a combination of the sonar and Hydro settings where as the sonar has been too nerfed yet the hydrophone settings are still pinpoint and track till 10 mtres.

I have managed to alter the hydrophone min range to 100 so that DD is not so accurate but I need to tweak more to get all things balanced rather than working on a small part of a big problem.

Sry had to leave as typing.

I am currently merging the Air Power settings with the new radar mod but want to get some good settings on DD's as well.

Hopefully it all can be formed together into one sensor Mod rather than being in different mods.

[chris911]

i also think that the sinking rate of the DC is to high maybe it is possible to slow them down by 20 or 25 %.

[gouldjg]

Hi Chris

The problem with slowing DC down is that we may end up with a situation where it is better to stay at flank speed all the time which is not how the game should play.

Now I have set the sonar arcs to 80 rather than 90 and min range to 100.

Having a sonar arc of 60 is just too dumbed down and people will know that even though this was done, the DD was still dropping on their heads due to hydrophone settings.

I have set min Hydrophone to 100 rather than 10 and seem to be having a better gameplay though you all will understand it takes more than just a few missions to confirm if in fact this is working.

[chris911]

Another idea i have is that it is maybe possible to create a heavy DC which if about four or five times as strong as normal DC but is only used in 5 % of all DC runs. that is not total unrealistic when u read How U 47 was sunk. also maybe a random sinking rate would be nice . but the question is , if the physics of the ingame world would allow such changes.

[gouldjg]

Unfortuantly that also is immpossible.

I am getting better results as far as the pin pointing is concerned, but I need to get depth presision down a notch and balance all through testing at different years.

I do not really care for extreme realism here as long as it feels right then I am fine with that.

It is maybe worth considering getting rid of of the rookie DD crew and replacing with other type.

I think it is time to track back through all threads and finding out everything that is know to date with regards to DD behaviour in game.

I also think it is worth considering writing some escape tactics to post as Mod in itself.

Exactly how many people do reverse for 5 seconds then hit flank ahead to make tighter turns when DD is passing etc etc blah blah.

Yep it is time to merge all ai work into one and tweak it.

Nuff said

[_alphaBeta_]

Well I usually use Jungman's sonar mod located here (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=40222).

My major destroyer problem is when you came up against an elite crew. As Jungman says in the readme with this mod, it's nearly impossible to get away. The destroyer can out turn you and always keep you inside the 90 degree angle necessary for ASDIC in the stock game.

That mod creates a minimum distance and decreases the ASDIC angles. At least this way you have a sporting chance. The only problem I see is with the minimum distance. It sometimes causes DDs to act unrealistically stupid. The other day I had a DD coming straight for me and then stopped right before the DC run because he lost me. He then made a hard turn and went in the other direction. While this minimum distance makes things a little more realistic, the game engine wasn't exactly designed to work with it causing some strange behavior.

Perhaps if the minimum distance was decreased a little more to encourage the DDs to make their DC even though the target was lost right beforehand.

[gouldjg]

Whilst the longer nerf on sonar min may help a little, it did not stop the pin point DD strikes. The 60 degree arc looks to me to have also affected other sonars in the game which is in turn leading to dumb DD.

This can be confirmed by checking with timetravellers tweak tool.



The hyrdophone default min range for ai is set to 10 mtres which means the DD can pin point attack run as your turning and its right on you tail up untill last second.

After reading some background stuff, It seems that DD should have a 300 yards blind spot at front and thus after that the DC was lucky guessing.

I am almost there to getting it to a 50/50 chance of not having a DC land too close but still close enough to do serious damage.

No longer does the DD follow me into a turn and to be honest he seems to come from more varied attack runs.

And no longer is he as dumb as he is now.

This may take a while to perfect rather than slapping up a quick fix.

Even Jungmann has re-considered some of the sonar mod settings and is currently re-looking at it all as we speak and when he gets time.

Maybe with the new tool on the block, we may start to merge all these power mods into one pack.

Thats only if all goes well.

[Pablo]

After reading some background stuff, It seems that DD should have a 300 yards blind spot at front and thus after that the DC was lucky guessing.
Hi!

The sonar blind spot is (in real life) not a constant, but dependent on the type of sonar and the depth of the U-boat. Early war sonars had a relatively shallow angle (say, 10-15 degrees wide just below the surface); this rewarded deep-diving submarines, since the range at which the surface ship lost contact increased as the submarine went deeper. Basic geometry gives a reasonably good first approximation of the size of the blind spot at different depths.

Later sonars had narrower beams but could look down at about a 70 degree angle, as well as looking to the side, resulting in a much smaller "blind spot" and giving a fairly accurate reading of the U-boat's depth.

In addition, destroyers developed a tactic where one ship would stand off and use its sonar to track the submarine while radioing directions to the close-in "blind" ships moving in for the kill.

It's not clear how well (if at all) SH3 models this kind of behavior or allows it to be modeled.

Pablo

[gouldjg]

I have had the 1 DD staying still while the other one does his run and it was either a fluke or good programming.

What does not happen in SH3 is when a DD loses contact, he has a small circular look around about 5 times and does not expand his circle of search.

Now as I believe it, in realife, they could leave the sub for half an hour but then have enough info to determine its maximum radious of travel. They then swooped onto the areas again and started it all over.

We have to work with what we got in game here. Sometimes realism sucks, especially if it did not really hapen anyway.

I see no point being too specific about realism if it is doing silly things like pin poiting.

I will tweak and tweak till that pin point has gone. Then nerf down the DC but up the decay times.

Hours and Hours of unrealistic testing is what is required to get this right nothing more and nothing less.

[_alphaBeta_]

After reading some background stuff, It seems that DD should have a 300 yards blind spot at front and thus after that the DC was lucky guessing. This definitely helps, and is more realistic to implement (which Jungman has already done). The problem is this:

The added blind spot sometimes cause the DD to break off the attack run and simply listen on the hydrophones (and then start the whole process over again while going in another direction). A real-life destroyer would still charge the area even after losing the contact (perhaps estimating where the target would be). The in-game destroyers are not programmed for this. They don't back off from the last known position either. They stay close to you which actually makes you safer with the mod. Obviously the devs didn't have DDs leave and come back because they didn't have a blind spot in their release.

With the blind spot in its current form, you just silent run and wait for the destroyer to charge in. He will lose the ASDIC lock and will not be able to hear you either. You're home free from there.

Either the blind spot must be nerfed to the point that the DD will still commit to the attack, or something else has to be worked out. I don't think anyone will be changing the DD behavior to back off so we may have to leave the blind spot out so they actually attack.

[gouldjg]

Exactly

Thats why I am aiming at 10 to 50.

I just do not think the active sonar is working alone here and there seems to be another sensor at work here hense the DD following you into a turn.

It is like you say, making sure the DD commits to the attack but yet we should also having it attacking 3 or 4 degrees out of line.

That the aim anyway.

[ICBM]

And what about the Hedgehogs, do they behave OK? The last time I lasted 2 patrolls when those things became operational. (Got a full HH volley straight on the decks..

[Redwine]

To finish those Ubber Dds behavior may be a combination of min range, min elevation and max elevation settings.

Timetraveller give us the key to do it.

Not sure but if he is right, 0 degrees is pointing up just to the sky, 90 degrees is just pointing front at sea level, and 180 is pointing down, at sea floor.

In example, i we want a beam of 30 degrees, and 10 degrees under the surface, will be :

min elevation 100

max elevation 130

If we put a min range of 200m, we will obtaiin a sonar beam wich will works 10 degrees under the surface, in a 30 degrees beam, and beyond 200m.

I made test on AI sonar and AI Hydrophones...... but they DDs in U-505 mission still detecting me when i made a full rudder turn, even when they was just over me.

May be the changes must to be made on all sensors.

But there are 39 sensors in the file, looking them with the Mini Tweaker Tool from Timetraveller.

I need to know what is each name of sensoe to identify which one is corresponding to a pasive and active sonar.

What is a QGAP or a QC1P...... a Type 268 etc...etc.

Do some body have a list of what is each one ?

Go ahead, still working.

[gouldjg]

To finish those Ubber Dds behavior may be a combination of min range, min elevation and max elevation settings.

Timetraveller give us the key to do it.

Not sure but if he is right, 0 degrees is pointing up just to the sky, 90 degrees is just pointing front at sea level, and 180 is pointing down, at sea floor.

In example, i we want a beam of 30 degrees, and 10 degrees under the surface, will be :

min elevation 100

max elevation 130

If we put a min range of 200m, we will obtaiin a sonar beam wich will works 10 degrees under the surface, in a 30 degrees beam, and beyond 200m.

I made test on AI sonar and AI Hydrophones...... but they DDs in U-505 mission still detecting me when i made a full rudder turn, even when they was just over me.

May be the changes must to be made on all sensors.

But there are 39 sensors in the file, looking them with the Mini Tweaker Tool from Timetraveller.

I need to know what is each name of sensoe to identify which one is corresponding to a pasive and active sonar.

What is a QGAP or a QC1P...... a Type 268 etc...etc.

Do some body have a list of what is each one ?

Go ahead, still working.

Agreed

In my silly testing, I changed all sea sensors min range. Some where set at 10 min so I presumed to set them at 50 or sometimes 75. This is when I started getting better results.

I am as stuck as you for knowing what is what. Maybe it is time to post each piece of equipement up on a board and challenge the realism experts out there. They always seem to come through on stuff like this.

[caspofungin]

check this diagram out -- has some basic info

http://www.de220.com/Electronics/Sonar/Sonar%20Photos/Sonar%20Patterns.jpg

[Redwine]

check this diagram out -- has some basic info

http://www.de220.com/Electronics/Sonar/Sonar%20Photos/Sonar%20Patterns.jpg

Thanks :up: , that is what we need to check and modify.

But i soupose those caracteristicas was not the same for all sonars, and during all the war.

Any ww do not need to adjust historical values, it is enough to adjust values to give us a good DD behavior.

Still testing.

[Heibges]

I have noticed similair behavior by Allied Aircraft. It seems that even in March 1942 there is no chance to dive safely from aircraft even if sighted at long range.

Is there a tweak for this?

[caspofungin]

ok, some historical values, which we can tweak for gameplay...

first, this stuff is hard to find. i don't have any print matterials, so if someone has access to books eg "Hitler's U-boat War" or electrical engineering journals, that would be useful. we don't need to go all out in terms of historical figures.

anyway,

type 123 -- pre-war and early war "searchlight" sonar, narrow beam as in diagram above but 360 degree sweep, range under operating conditions approx 2000m, 2500 ideal. 123A was (irl) an improvement w/ improved amplifiers and automatic "send" key, in game, i agree that the "p" and "a" suffixes denote passive and active respectively.

type 128 -- similar to 123

type 144 -- later system, "depth-finding," 45 degree vertical component, range 1200m, either 75 degree sweep either side or 360 degree sweep, depending on source. technical max speed 25kts, 20kts under operational conditions.

type 147A -- "Sword" attachment, 65 degree either side and -45 degree vertical, introduced 9/43

info from the diagram linked above, also "Hackmann, Willem. 1984. Seek & Strike: sonar, anti-submarine warfare and the Royal
Navy. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office." which is basically the same diagram but a little more basic.

couldn't find any info on types 138, not sure about Qcia, Qgaa, Qcea.

[caspofungin]

i'm going to try and implement some of those values above. the 300m "blind spot" is an effect of the beam size limitations of the early war active sets. also, i'm going to artificially limit the 360 degree sweeps to 270 degreees to mimic baffles.

my 1 question is how the ai_sonar setting relates to all the different types available.

[gouldjg]

Qcia, Qgaa, Qcea

It is these that are confusing me.

I suspect it is not a specific type of equipment but seems to be in both passive and Active.

I am wondering if they represent a state of combat or similar.

Lets take the q away

CIA

GAA

CEA

Now I presume the last letter must be the same

so

CI
GA
CE

Hmmmm any ideas anyone.

think of it as a word puzzle,

It is these that I changed but I do not yt know if there are any side effects in early DD,s.

I am wondering what exactly is the DD bonus bye being elite veterern etc.

Do we have a translator who can translate in the devs language and see if the above are similar to crew skill levels.

[Der Teddy Bar]

From much testing of how things work, may I suggest that using the stock missions is not a good thing.

Make your own custom missions where you can control the environement and that the escorts grouping/s etc do not skew the tests. I would recommend just setting up InsertNumberHere of escorts in a far flung part of the world.

I would also suggest possibly increasing the Lost Contact time to keep the escort longer for these tests.

[gouldjg]

From much testing of how things work, may I suggest that using the stock missions is not a good thing.

Make your own custom missions where you can control the environement and that the escorts grouping/s etc do not skew the tests. I would recommend just setting up InsertNumberHere of escorts in a far flung part of the world.

I would also suggest possibly increasing the Lost Contact time to keep the escort longer for these tests.


I just do not have any mission building skills.

I wonder if anyone has a mission in the next forum or they can whip one up for testing this.?

[Redwine]

Well ... i applied some changes based on key given by Timetraveller.

I attempt to identify pasive and active sonar looking on they arc angles and ranges.

I works on jungman's file, wich had reduced arc wide from 90 to 60 degrees.

I change beam depth angle (vertical angle) , on pasive sensors with angles from 80/170 ......... to 88/100.

And on actives with angles 90/100 ....to 90/95.



Tested only on U-505 stock mission :

They have now more problems to detect me if i do not do any stupid thing.

If i rise my periscope, they prey on me as before.

When they engage me, there are more posibiities to loss contact.

When i made full rudder turns, with them just on my back, some time they can not detect my turns or make more soft maneuvers than before, they looks not so precise as before in this behavior.

Any way they looks so precise even, they do not lose too much, but are not the same than before, i need more impressions to be sure.

If any one want to try, here is the file, it is easy to modify with Timetraveller Mini Tweak Tool.

http://rapidshare.de/files/7930762/AI_Sensors.zip.html

Try and comment :up:

[gouldjg]

Well ... i applied some changes based on key given by Timetraveller.

I attempt to identify pasive and active sonar looking on they arc angles and ranges.

I works on jungman's file, wich had reduced arc wide from 90 to 60 degrees.

I change beam depth angle (vertical angle) , on pasive sensors with angles from 80/170 ......... to 88/100.

And on actives with angles 90/100 ....to 90/95.



Tested only on U-505 stock mission :

They have now more problems to detect me if i do not do any stupid thing.

If i rise my periscope, they prey on me as before.

When they engage me, there are more posibiities to loss contact.

When i made full rudder turns, with them just on my back, some time they can not detect my turns or make more soft maneuvers than before, they looks not so precise as before in this behavior.

Any way they looks so precise even, they do not lose too much, but are not the same than before, i need more impressions to be sure.

If any one want to try, here is the file, it is easy to modify with Timetraveller Mini Tweak Tool.

http://rapidshare.de/files/7930762/AI_Sensors.zip.html

Try and comment :up:

Nice work

Have you identified all equipment i.e. the stuff i mentioned above. I know this is underwater stuff but do not know if it is equipment or bonus for crew ranks or conditions.

I will be happy if we get just a mere 7 second extended lead on the turn but anything better is a bonus.

I am wary of changes that may make them less able to detect me than now though as I feel that part should be upped if anything. i.. passive ranges.

I will have a bash with it.

My only change is changing Jungmans 60 more to 80 but I suppose oneday I will play the real campaign and come undone by this method.

[Redwine]

Nice work

Have you identified all equipment i.e. the stuff i mentioned above.

I only soupose their function based on their angles and ranges, most in ranges.

A range short means it is an active and a long range means it is an pasive.

Values changed was those with

88/100 min/max elevation.
AI_Hydrophone
QGAP
QC1P
QCeP
Type144P
Type138P
Type128P
Type123P


90/95 min/max elevation.
AI_Sonar
QGAA
QC1A
QCeA
Type147A
Type144A
Type128A
Type123A




I am wary of changes that may make them less able to detect me than now though as I feel that part should be upped if anything. i.. passive ranges.

I will have a bash with it.

I made no changes on maximun detection rages, only minimun seted at 200m, theoretically if i am into their beam i will be detected at same long distance than before.
I only mede the beams not too depest than before, so they will have troubles when over me or near me.

Any way, it is only an attempt, not intemption to be a mod, i soupose we need to works a lot of to obtain a balanced behavior between reality and game playability.

I put it because, the Mini Tweak Tool made a automatic save of the file, i do not open it with an hexeditor, i feel... just my impresion DDs behaviors changed a little bit, but need more opinions.

Just try and make your own changes during your test, one of all us will found a good set of settings :rotfl:

Any way i am more agree with Jungsman 60 degrees arc, they was so deadly and lucky before.

:up:

[HEMISENT]

Gould jg
I'm not the greatest at working up elaborate single missions but I'm pretty sure I can put something together for you for testing purposes.
I suck at modelling but perhaps I can make a small contribution in this way.
Let me know what you want in the way of:
location
u boat type
number/quality of escorts.

[CB..]

how does this issue relate to the stock game set up--why i ask is that (ala SH2) one of the issues i've had with SH3 is exaclty the opposite of this one--ie no matter how i set the game up (more so after the patch than before it) the DD's simply could not find me unless i deliberately gave the game away (went to flank /surfaced etc)

in fact i just got so fed up of getting away with murder when attacking convoys i stopped playing as nothing i did seemed to wake the DD's up--

recently tho i had another go and had to go into the game files (thanks to TT's tools :up: ) and DOUBLE the detection range for the DD hydrophones

now finally they at least have a go at me without me having to deliberatley let them know im there--whew finally a bit of gameplay-- they are still pretty useless mind but at least there's some anxiety when attacking a convoy

there are odd ones out (as it were) ie some of the american DD's are far superior to the brits and can be very persistant but other than that i've had to make the damage system for the sub far more sensitive to damage than stock allso to make things more dangerous (this would be mid war 42/43)
puzzling that as per SH2 different folks have opposite problems with the DD sensors--(it certainly isn't down to my skills :oops: )

so wonder what the issue is?

one thing i have noticed is that when i am detected the DD's allways drop as the prow of the DD gets directly over head which means that the dc's allways explode behind me--- i wonder if the AI sometimes assumes it's armed with hedghogs when in fact it is using normal dc's-as dropping as the prow of the ship comes over head would work well with hedgehogs but obviously not so well with dc's

(this is of course with elite crews)

it's very frustrating either way you have this problem!!

and the soloution is obviuosly going to be different depending on what problem your having :hmm: wierd

[gouldjg]

how does this issue relate to the stock game set up--why i ask is that (ala SH2) one of the issues i've had with SH3 is exaclty the opposite of this one--ie no matter how i set the game up (more so after the patch than before it) the DD's simply could not find me unless i deliberately gave the game away (went to flank /surfaced etc)

in fact i just got so fed up of getting away with murder when attacking convoys i stopped playing as nothing i did seemed to wake the DD's up--

recently tho i had another go and had to go into the game files (thanks to TT's tools :up: ) and DOUBLE the detection range for the DD hydrophones

now finally they at least have a go at me without me having to deliberatley let them know im there--whew finally a bit of gameplay-- they are still pretty useless mind but at least there's some anxiety when attacking a convoy

there are odd ones out (as it were) ie some of the american DD's are far superior to the brits and can be very persistant but other than that i've had to make the damage system for the sub far more sensitive to damage than stock allso to make things more dangerous (this would be mid war 42/43)
puzzling that as per SH2 different folks have opposite problems with the DD sensors--(it certainly isn't down to my skills :oops: )

so wonder what the issue is?

one thing i have noticed is that when i am detected the DD's allways drop as the prow of the DD gets directly over head which means that the dc's allways explode behind me--- i wonder if the AI sometimes assumes it's armed with hedghogs when in fact it is using normal dc's-as dropping as the prow of the ship comes over head would work well with hedgehogs but obviously not so well with dc's

(this is of course with elite crews)

it's very frustrating either way you have this problem!!

and the soloution is obviuosly going to be different depending on what problem your having :hmm: wierd

I agree with you CB.

The DD are dumb yet deadly which is a game killer for me.

They practiclaly need telling you are there.

In SH2, I always had to be more cautious approaching the convoys.

My only concern is the pin point dropping. Once I rid this problem, it is then a matter of getting Late war DD to pick me up quicker and from further away.

Would be nice to be able to put all this top table form and then deal with each one in turn.

[Redwine]

Hi CB, nice to meet you into this topic, you had made the best mod for SH2........

I dont think so the DDs are so deadly, instead those american Dds yes they are.

The behavior i want to "fix" is the fact of they can detect my full turns when they are passing over me.

I dont think so it was posible in real life, sure was dificoult to a sonar operator to detect a full tuer of the sub when the Dd is near to just over the sub, and if they was able to do it when they was a little bit at stern, the sonar operator must to call the sub maneuver to an officer, it to the rudder control and then the ship can follow the sub turn.

Instead in the game, they can detect the full turn when over the sub and change DDs course instantaneously...... :huh:

They have a Video Camera under the keel !! :damn: :rotfl:

Has i commented before when you done your excelent mod for SH2, the historical values are not important, the important is to obtain an historical or real or aceptable real behavior.

I was under prey for more than 24hs :88) with your mod in SH2 ...that was a real behavior, disregarding settings.

[CB..]

i wonder if it's somehow down to the way the AI is programmed to co-operate during a DC attack---sometimes they do seem to work to-gether and some times they don't perhaps it's more down to that function which when it works it works too well and when it doesn't they are hopeless--
i'd be very interested in finding out the key files and entrys that control the tactics and "decisions" made by the AI wether to co-operate or not and why they adopt this tactic rather than another---i have only once seen them use the creeping attack- where one shadows you almost directly over head and to one side while another screams around dropping dc's one every run-- the tactic they allways use on me is the circling one where they form a rough perimeter around me and take it turns to make dc runs whilst the others sit stationary around the outside-- but the principle problem is often that they attack where i was last detected --no matter how much time has passed since the detection was made- so usually im long gone

for the pin point uber dd problem i wonder if it might be an easier approach to see if were possible to increase the effectiveness of the anti sonar coatings (must be a file with some sort of editable entry some where) that might actually give more interesting and variable results than attacking the DD sensors directly
but then it would make the useless one even worse-- i dunno

i'm working along the lines of uber hydrophones with longer detection times and shorter "lose" times- coupled with dodgy active sonar
so they can find me accurately (but lose me just as easily) there by ensuring some danger and excitment and hopefully some degree of sub damage often enough to make the gameplay "flow" but avoid the instant death scenario (which is as you say a complete gameplay killer )

thats one of the reasons i've gone for a far more fragile boat damage zones wise--whilst keeping the hull integrity tough--this means i can get major system damage losing the tubes scopes compressors batterys etc without any heavy damage to the hull integrity it works in the end because with all tubes destroyed --scopes destroyed-- even batterys and engines destroyed-- your just as dead as if you had been sunk (gameplay wise) but you get to limp home and try again another day

[CB..]

:oops: simulataeneous post Red!! many thanks for the compliments!!!
your work was just as immersive!! thanks again :up:

perhaps it is the AI rather than the sensor i wonder :hmm:

[Marhkimov]

Well, considering the fact that the DDs in SH3 sometimes work and sometimes they don't, that seems realistic to me. In real life, they didn't have a sub-hunting handbook that told them what tactics to use... Ok, so they probably did, but it's not like every time they would follow the same boring patterns.

Think hypothetical situation in SH3. Let's say that there are three DDs protecting a convoy and you manage to sink one of the cargo ships. Isn't it conceivable that only one of the DDs might decide to hunt for you, while the other two continue to sail on? Likewise, isn't it also conceivable that all three DDs might hunt for you? Who knows, maybe even none of the DDs might decide to hunt for you. Well, just like in real life, anything is possible.


But onto the point of uber DD detection, yes they are crazy good most of the time. Once they find me, usually I'm locked and as good as dead.

CB brings up an intersting point by saying that we could up the effectiveness of sonar coating. Even if it doesn't work, I like the idea because it is "out of the box." We should find some more "out of the box" ideas.

[Redwine]

:oops: simulataeneous post Red!! many thanks for the compliments!!!
your work was just as immersive!! thanks again :up:

perhaps it is the AI rather than the sensor i wonder :hmm:


:damn: I think so you are right, i reduce all beams ticknes, and they still looking me with the underkeel camera ....... they still detecting my full rudder turn even when they are passing over me... i cant undestand :88) :dead: there is a sailor with the head into the water :88)

[Marhkimov]

i cant undestand :88) :dead: there is a sailor with the head into the water :88)

Go in scene.dat and make the water more murky. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[caspofungin]

quick question -- irl sonar had a blind spot 200-300 yds out from dd due to beam geometry +/- electronics shortcomings ie too short a return time to accurately gauge distance.

was there a similar "dead zone" for hydrophones?

[caspofungin]

here's some more info re hydrophones:

"ADM 219/563, Theoretical U/Boat listening ranges. This report was published by the US Navy's 10th Fleet ASW OR Group on 20 Aug 1943. Neglecting reflection and reflection of sound, and considering attenuation only, the distances at which a U-boat could detect the hydrophone effect (HE) for the noise output from a 50-ship convoy, or detect pings from a 40-watt QC projector, are given, in yards, as:

Water noise level-----Hydrophone Effect-----Intercepting pings
High---------------------------7,000----------------------19,000
Medium---------------------21,000-----------------------25,000
Low--------------------------31,000-----------------------27,000

These figures are viewed as reasonable, as U-boat survivor reports claim ranges of 10-15 miles, and in one case 20 miles.
Using sound intensities typical for US submarines, the following distances in yards at which an escort can hear a U-boat travelling at different speeds are calculated using similar assumptions:
Water--------------------Surfaced--------------------Submerged
Noise----------------7kt---14kt---17kt---------------4kt---6kt
High-----------------50---500---600------------------50---750
Medium-----------260---1800---2100--------------260---2500
Low---------------430---2500---2900----------------430---3300

It is assumed that the listening is non-directional and that the ASW vessel is noiseless. It is further assumed that these unrealistic assumptions will probably cancel each other out in practice."

The above is from
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:GYXEYNb20s8J:schmeisser.elsat.net.p l/temp/WW2nav14May02.pdf+ww2+hydrophone&hl=en&client=opera

which also has interesting info re number of torps needed to sink a ship, but that's a different discussion.

check the last table, the bold number -- that's surprisingly low range for a sub at (i assume) silent running. is that reflected in sh3?

also QCL, QCE, QGA are American active sonar systems.

[Reece]

Keep going & don't give up! this is one area in SH3 I would love to see fixed :) I play coop game on net & in 1943 the DD's are easy to avoid but in 1939 they pick me up while silent running 1km away drop DC's with pin point accuracy & you cannot escape, this is with destroyer intellegence set to minimum! and game play easy :(
Should be the other way around.
Just a thought that maybe a number of settings could be made and then incorporated into SH3 Commander, though this will not fix single missions or net play. :-?

[caspofungin]

i'm about to put my fist thru my lcd...

using minitweaker to alter ai_sensors, set minimal settings for all hydrophones and active sonars, made a single mission viic vs 2 black swans. even w/ their sensors nerfed, i'm still getting picked up, sound meter red, pin point drops.

any other files we know of that affect enemy sensors?

[Marhkimov]

You mean you nerfed them 100% and they still found you?

[caspofungin]

min range 0, max range 10, min elevation 0, max elevation -10 for all hydrophones, sonars, ai_hydrophone, and ai_sonar. set visual and radar elevations 0-90 (from 180.)

and yes, they still f'ing found me. i was getting pinged, had the red warning sihouette, etc. then got creamed by dcs.

[Marhkimov]

Try data\cfg\sim.cfg

[Redwine]

Hi guy, i still making changes in the AI_Sensors.dat.

I arrive to a point where DDs become a little bit unskill., then i attempt to rise up their skill a new time.

I arrive to this file, wich one let them to detect me but not so lucky as before.

In silent running and beloww 2 knots i am near to undetected.

It was near to real i think so, a submerged sub at silent speeds was very hard to detect even at later war times.

Of course at 70m and 2 knots you can not sink any ship, you are enforced to go to periscope depth and increase speed to maneuver, putting your sub under risk.

At one third, they can hear me.

And if they catch me with the active sonar, they start up to prey on me, but now is a little bit more easy to shake them away.

I have not the problem described by CB, they droops the depth charges, before to arrive over me and pasing over me.

Before, they can easy detect me so they always attack me from my back and along the sub, now is not so easy for them to detect me and when circling, they was enforced to attack from my sides too.

Here the last moded file

http://rapidshare.de/files/7978445/AI_Sensors.zip.html

Tested on U-505 and Barhan stock missions


@ CB :

Hi, CB, may be due to the files and mods you are using, but i have not the same behavior than you, DDs do not droops DC just over me, they start up launching then so before me, and passing over me, and after me.

If you want i can send you my files.

[caspofungin]

i must be doing something wrong...

1. did you change sim.cfg at all?
2. noticed you've given active sonars a narrow beam -- does this affect them finding you at depth?

[CB..]

@ CB :

Hi, CB, may be due to the files and mods you are using, but i have not the same behavior than you, DDs do not droops DC just over me, they start up launching then so before me, and passing over me, and after me.

If you want i can send you my files.

many thanks for the offer Red!

i'm kinda getting closer as i keep tinkering around with the files and settings so i'll stay with the ones i've got so far- it's part of the fun sometimes to work away on this stuff
last night i was sunk by a lone brit twin stacker after a prolonged attack by 6 DD's- the twin stacker finaly was the only DD that persisted in the attack - the others had returned to the convoy - and eventually it got me (i couldn't shake it no matter what i did) so i'll have a look in the museum to see which DD that was and check it's sensors against the other escorts to see if that one has different sensors etc -

i didn't manage to sink any merchants - torped 4 of them but none sanke and the dd's kept me down long enough for me not to have a chance to finish them off - so it was quite a lively encounter which is what is needed-- :yep:
i slightly increased the explosive range of the dc's to compensate for the mis timed drops

[Redwine]

i must be doing something wrong...

1. did you change sim.cfg at all?
2. noticed you've given active sonars a narrow beam -- does this affect them finding you at depth?

1]
No changes at sim.cfg yet, only test and error on AI_Sensors.dat

2]
That is my objective, i am looking to kill their ability to look me with an underkeel video camera when passing over me.
May be my bad english, but dont made them more narrow, i made them more "slender" in vertical angle.
If you look the values, in game values are more than 3 times biggers than in real life.
My objective was to have a shadow zone when they are just over me, now DDs are able to detect me so good when are just over me, and are capable to detect my full rudder turns inmediatelly, and they follows my turns instantaneously. Not real.

Any way with those changes they do not loss too much skill, but i can note a change in their attack behavior.

Just test and comment, it is not a mod is oly test, most opinions we have better can do it.




@ CB :

Hi, CB, may be due to the files and mods you are using, but i have not the same behavior than you, DDs do not droops DC just over me, they start up launching then so before me, and passing over me, and after me.

If you want i can send you my files.

many thanks for the offer Red!

i'm kinda getting closer as i keep tinkering around with the files and settings so i'll stay with the ones i've got so far- it's part of the fun sometimes to work away on this stuff
last night i was sunk by a lone brit twin stacker after a prolonged attack by 6 DD's- the twin stacker finaly was the only DD that persisted in the attack - the others had returned to the convoy - and eventually it got me (i couldn't shake it no matter what i did) so i'll have a look in the museum to see which DD that was and check it's sensors against the other escorts to see if that one has different sensors etc -

i didn't manage to sink any merchants - torped 4 of them but none sanke and the dd's kept me down long enough for me not to have a chance to finish them off - so it was quite a lively encounter which is what is needed-- :yep:
i slightly increased the explosive range of the dc's to compensate for the mis timed drops

:up: Good, sincerelly i want to reproduce the behavior you had reahced with your mod in SH2........ you are an Ancient Master.

Your behavior sounds good, normally if i dont do any stupid thing, i can shake them, even with the original AI-Sensors from Jungsman.

With this last file it is a little bit more easy to shake them, but always enforced to be submerged deep and running so slow (2knts) and silent, if not, even at one third, they catch you.


The only thing i capture my atention is why you have that behavior in depth charges drooping, in my files they droops the dc so good before me, over me and after me.....

[Redwine]

Well, same conclusion than Caspofungin...... you reduce active and pasive sonars beam near to let them blind and they still prey on you as rabid dogs. :hmm: (U-505 stock mission) :damn:

Did some body done some changes on sim.cfg as Marhkimov suggested ?

We need to localize the file wich give them taht Ubber capability :88)

[Redwine]

Testing changes on sim.cfg :

Hydrophones has a line Height Factor

Aparently this line with a negative number put a ceiling limit for sensor.

Sonar sensor has not this line, i add this line to it, and adjust a negative valur in example -15 or -25, then DDs are not able to ping you under these depths.

Speed Factor, this line may be is a speed limit to use the sensor, in example if i put a value 10 on Hydrophones, the DD can not use the sensor above this value in Knots.

;) I have nothing to do today....... except i need to help my kid on school homework now, by one hour....... be back :P

[CB..]

cheers again red :up: (tho i don't really merit such praise!+ :oops: )

i used the sim.cfg entrys a lot in the original un-patched game and they were very effective in controling the DD sensors-
sadly in the patched game things seem to be working differently--and the sim.cfg entrys seem to be less effective than before--i don't know if this is just my experience tho-- prior to the patch you could use the noise and waves factors to precisely control at what point the DD's detected you
these were the settings i used pre patch

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=2 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=0.6 ;[>=0]

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=20

these are the settings i'm trying at the moment (with the 1.4b patch)

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

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=20

tho i'm not sure if they are really having any major effect


what is the hydrophone line height factor?
how do you add it to the entrys?

sounds interesting
i still don't know why the DD's are dropping their main dc's at the wrong moment (they do all their damage with the k-guns so far)
i'm allso wondering if giving the active sonar and extended detection time of even 15 seconds might give you time to evade the pin point drops your having it would take the sonar operator at least 15 seconds to pan the sonar head round lsitening for echoes (it probably would have taken him at least a minute !) so that might be the key?

[Redwine]

tho i'm not sure if they are really having any major effect


I note a strange behavior, some times is easy to shake them and some times it is too hard or near to imposible, with same file settings. Some times i think there is a hidden key making the mission random..... :hmm:



what is the hydrophone line height factor?
how do you add it to the entrys?


Just add the line from Hydrophones into Sonar like this......

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=20

If you put in example :

Height factor=-25 ;[m]

If i am not wrong they can not ping you between surface and 25 meters depth.



sounds interesting
i still don't know why the DD's are dropping their main dc's at the wrong moment (they do all their damage with the k-guns so far)


May be a characteristic of the file set from diferent mods you are using.



i'm allso wondering if giving the active sonar and extended detection time of even 15 seconds might give you time to evade the pin point drops your having it would take the sonar operator at least 15 seconds to pan the sonar head round lsitening for echoes (it probably would have taken him at least a minute !) so that might be the key?

in my files, active detection time is 20 sec, i dont have a previous back-up of it, this means it is the 1.4b setting, 20 seconds.
If not, i have this file from a mod i cant remember. Any way with 20sec they are still deadly.

Detection time for Hydrophones is 1 second.

Try and share comments. :up:

[caspofungin]

let's standardize our test mission, too. currently, i'm going 1 on 1 w/ a black swan, 1939 vintage, start on the surface 5000m apart, heading towards each other at 10kts. I'm not sure if being spotted on the surface improves their ability (the already tracking variable?)

[CB..]

Cheers red :up:
will add the heightfactor to the file and see how i go on--
here's a thought -- i wonder if it was easyier to tell the depth of a u-boat if it was deep than if it was shallow--?
as the length of time it would take the echoe to return from depth would be longer --surely it was easyier to gauge the difference between say 100 metres and 120 metres- than it was to guage the difference between 25 metres and 50?
as the ping would come back at pretty much the same time-- this would make the heightfactor quite an interesting tactical change? i dunno

perhaps it might actually work a lot better if the lose time for the active and hydrophones was 1 second--forcing the DD's to constantly re-aquire the contact-

might make them behave in an interesting fashion?
i'm wondering if with the lose time set at 20 seconds they retain contact with you even tho you are behind them and they are at 25 knots simply because the lose time dictates that they cannot lose contact untill the 20 seconds are up?
20 seconds isn't very long - but it is enough time for the DD to slow down after a dc run and get below the max speed for sensors? perhaps meaning they never lose contact at all?

[gouldjg]

Cheers red :up:
will add the heightfactor to the file and see how i go on--
here's a thought -- i wonder if it was easyier to tell the depth of a u-boat if it was deep than if it was shallow--?
as the length of time it would take the echoe to return from depth would be longer --surely it was easyier to gauge the difference between say 100 metres and 120 metres- than it was to guage the difference between 25 metres and 50?
as the ping would come back at pretty much the same time-- this would make the heightfactor quite an interesting tactical change? i dunno

perhaps it might actually work a lot better if the lose time for the active and hydrophones was 1 second--forcing the DD's to constantly re-aquire the contact-

might make them behave in an interesting fashion?
i'm wondering if with the lose time set at 20 seconds they retain contact with you even tho you are behind them and they are at 25 knots simply because the lose time dictates that they cannot lose contact untill the 20 seconds are up?
20 seconds isn't very long - but it is enough time for the DD to slow down after a dc run and get below the max speed for sensors? perhaps meaning they never lose contact at all?

I feel lose time and contact time could be influenced here. I also feel that if this was done you could lenghen the sensor ranges.

The big question is just how screwed up other stuff may become.

Did SH2 DD always track for subs and SH3 does not and requires an alert status to be reached before it switched these on?

[Redwine]

let's standardize our test mission, too. currently, i'm going 1 on 1 w/ a black swan, 1939 vintage, start on the surface 5000m apart, heading towards each other at 10kts. I'm not sure if being spotted on the surface improves their ability (the already tracking variable?)

Put your mission on rapidshare to test on it too, i test the files on U-505 ans Barham missions.
About to being spotet on surface, i am not sure, but almost in the files settings i am testing now, if they spot your periscope, sight or may be radar, they become incredible more agresive.




here's a thought -- i wonder if it was easyier to tell the depth of a u-boat if it was deep than if it was shallow--?

I can ucerstand well, sorry my bad english.


as the length of time it would take the echoe to return from depth would be longer --surely it was easyier to gauge the difference between say 100 metres and 120 metres- than it was to guage the difference between 25 metres and 50?
as the ping would come back at pretty much the same time-- this would make the heightfactor quite an interesting tactical change? i dunno

May be posible is like your explanation, a minimun distance at wich the sensor can measure the time of echo return, i was tinking it was a ceiling limit for the sensor, anyway it looks as a limitation on the sensor we can use to change DDs behavior.


perhaps it might actually work a lot better if the lose time for the active and hydrophones was 1 second--forcing the DD's to constantly re-aquire the contact-
might make them behave in an interesting fashion?

It sound so interesting, may be a good key to control DDs capability, will test it.


i'm wondering if with the lose time set at 20 seconds they retain contact with you even tho you are behind them and they are at 25 knots simply because the lose time dictates that they cannot lose contact untill the 20 seconds are up?
20 seconds isn't very long - but it is enough time for the DD to slow down after a dc run and get below the max speed for sensors? perhaps meaning they never lose contact at all?

If it is correct may be the key for Ubber Dds. DDs are linked to you by the program.
Did you tested lower times ?



I feel lose time and contact time could be influenced here. I also feel that if this was done you could lenghen the sensor ranges.

The big question is just how screwed up other stuff may become.

Did SH2 DD always track for subs and SH3 does not and requires an alert status to be reached before it switched these on?

Some times looks it is true, if you remain in silent running or engine stoped, and DDs do not had spotted you before, they pass over you without know you are there under them.

Just rise up your periscope or put ahead flank by some seconds and they wake-up and start up searching for you as rabid dogs.

[CB..]

:up: interesting stuff!!
i do have doubled hydrophone range for the DD's so that can add some info
i tried the cfg settings with two seconds lose time for the sonar

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

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=2


went convoy hunting ( i allways test in a career patrol rather than single missions)

i approached the convoy on the surface - was spotted by a DD and it opened fire with it's main guns-- i dived --it raced over but did not drop DC's (by the time it arrived it had lost the contact?)

so i ran at flank submerged to catch the convoy from the side
only going slow when in range of the DD's - when i got detected they behaved differently than normal-
as usual one attacked whilst another circled but after the second attack it left and went back to it's normal escort position -

when the lone DD detected me again (enemy is pinging) the second DD returned to re join the attack

they didn't have any trouble detecting me and the small lose time didn't stop them from re-gaining contact with me

i quite liked the way they behaved as it gave me short periods of time where i could evade them before they re-gained sonar contact (it simulated the blind spot in a way)- and they were a whole lot more human and easily distracted - racing away only to immediately return if another DD got sonar contact
mind you they nailed me good and proper - and here's the funny part- they dropped their DC's at the right moment ( as the stern of the ship was slightly ahead ) so i'm not sure what that means
any how another career bites the dust LOL!! that's two in a row

it did effect the way they co-operated, so gradually increasing the lose time to see what happens would be a good way to test their tactics


i havent tried the height setting yet tho

what i was wondering about the u-boat depth perhaps being eaisier to detect when deep rather than shallow red- was that as the ping time would be short when pinging a shallow sub only a second or two difference in echoe time when shallow-- where as a deeper sub's echoe would benoticably longer making it easier to tell the difference between small depth changes? and if so the height entry would be a good way to simulate that :up:

[Der Teddy Bar]

So is it the exact location or it the exact depth that you are trying to fix?

[Redwine]

i havent tried the height setting yet tho

what i was wondering about the u-boat depth perhaps being eaisier to detect when deep rather than shallow red- was that as the ping time would be short when pinging a shallow sub only a second or two difference in echoe time when shallow-- where as a deeper sub's echoe would benoticably longer making it easier to tell the difference between small depth changes? and if so the height entry would be a good way to simulate that :up:

Agree with you, a nearest target may be not preciselly positioned.
But i am not sure it the heigh factor is related to the long of the ping beam and its return.

May be a shadow zone near of the sea surface.

We have this two probabilities.

Or..... may be 3 ?
What about if depth factor is the depth at wich is located the sensor under keel ?

We need more tests :up:

[caspofungin]

i'm still not sure about what effect variables have.

there seems to be some sort of uber sensor -- even w/ sonar and hydrophone sensitivities set to 0, when you get close enough to the escort, he detects you (as evidenced by the stealth meter) and even starts pinging you, even if you should theoretically be out of the beam of early war sonars (which i'm testing against.) 2 caveats, however -- as the distance increases (>200-300m) eventually he can't pick you up, regardless of speed/silent running/repairs. also, there's a blind spot off the beam of the escort -- can't tell you the exact angle but >=90 degrees.

i'll test w/ a sensitivity of 1 next.

regarding pinpoint dropping -- not sure if this is related to sensor sensitivity or not. in my series of tests (sens 0-0.03 (stock)) there's but pinpoint accuracy and error -- same escort, in the same attack, just different runs.

[caspofungin]

right, just starting to figure out the basics...

detection time
detection time has much more of an impact than sensitivity. a detection time of 0 for sonar and hydrophones will allow the escort to pick you up a long way away... i'm assuming that it affects the "sweep" time, ie the time that particular sensor takes to cover its alloted sector. limits of those sectors eg range, bearing, etc. are defined in ai_sensors, although i'm not sure of the relation between, for example, ai_sonar and types 144/147/etc. is ai_sonar or ai_hydrophones an overall limit? not sure.

sensitivity
sensitivity, i believe, is counter-intuitive. a lower value increases chance of detection. it's not a linear relationship, though -- going from 0.2 to 0.1 doesn't double the chance of detection.

noise factor
still not sure how this affects things. is this the effect of extraneous noise eg dc explosions? or is it related to the noise your sub is making eg silent vs not silent running?

ideally, dc's exploding should cause the escort to lose contact w/ you. that, in combination w/ the dead zone and baffles, should allow you an opportunity to make some distance and eventually escape.

however sensitive, it's alway possible to escape from 1 escort w/ basic sensors, even if it's an elite. add another escort, though, and its an order of magnitude harder, even if they are competent or veteran. 1 ship will always have contact w/ you. not sure if "creeping attack" was actually implemented, or if its a by product of collision avoidance a.i.

anyway, off to get a bite to eat. let me know what you guys think. i'm open to suggestion, and if you think i'm making incorrect assumptions, let me know.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Could "noise factor" be related to the amount of time that local water acoustics were ruined by various things like DC explosions or passage of screws/engines nearby? :hmm:

I realize this isn't much help, but thought I'd bring it up in case you all hadn't considered it yet.

[caspofungin]

yeah, that's what i thought initially, but it's hard to test -- need to get d/c'd :o and see if they lose contact (using stealth meter). very fiddly stuff...

[caspofungin]

CB had the key -- it's mainly down to the detection time. detection time is down to 0 for hydrophones and sonar, brit active sonars (123,128,144,147) have been changed to be consistent w/ the values i've posted previously -- eg searchlight sonar has a beam of 16degrees (don't know the details for us active sonars, or any passive sonars other than on my 2nd link re average detection distances at 4 and 6 knots--see above). sensitivity got tweaked up -- by turning number down.

i've uploaded my sim.cfg, ai_sensors, and a test mission to rapidshare. feel free to further tweak sensitivity -- need to get inc range on both active and passive detection systems. but check it out -- no artificial blind zone using min detect ranges, it all seems to be down to beam geometry e.g. w/ a 16 degree beam, you go from red to green stealth meter at roughly 200m if you're at roughly 56m (200 tan 16 = 56). i've given the searchlight sonars a beam geometry of elevation 90-116 (irl 100-116), various bearing limitations dependent on system, range from sources listed in prev posts.

anyway, i've tried it a few times -- blind spot due to geometry, blind spots due to ships baffles.

feel free to tweak -- at work all day tomorrow, so go for it. :D

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

(and please forgive me if i've gotten it wrong.)

[gouldjg]

With regards to noise factor,

I was snooping through some files in the libary and came accross what I think was the decoy launcher.

When viewing it,

I notice it has Bubbles set at different rates and also mentions noise factors.

I have no clue as to the relevence but do suspect that DD have a detection on bubbles caused by both the decoys and the sub.

I may look into the sub files and see if bubbles is also mentioned in the zon files.

It is then a matter of seeing any patterns if any at all.

Would like to know if only one decoy launcher is available in later years within the game because as I was looking, there seemed to be different values set so either for different decoys or different states.

I agree that a standard mission should be created as follows to test DD behaviour.


1 map, Late war DD to north, Early war DD to south, Mid range to east and elites to west.

At least then we can test properly.


Can someone whip this up as I have no skills in mission making what so ever.

I will be away with work for the next day or so but will be straight back onto this as soon as I arrive back.


CB

I suspected some interesting results with what you was doing.

If only there was some way to make the late war DD do a larger circular search pattern. This would make them worth their salt.

[Redwine]

@ Caspofungin :

Thanks, downloading, i will test.


With regards to noise factor,

I was snooping through some files in the libary and came accross what I think was the decoy launcher.

When viewing it,

I notice it has Bubbles set at different rates and also mentions noise factors.

I have no clue as to the relevence but do suspect that DD have a detection on bubbles caused by both the decoys and the sub.

I may look into the sub files and see if bubbles is also mentioned in the zon files.

Where did you found the files about decoys ?
I am interesting into introduce a delay in the decoy activation.

[Txema]

no artificial blind zone using min detect ranges, it all seems to be down to beam geometry e.g. w/ a 16 degree beam, you go from red to green stealth meter at roughly 200m if you're at roughly 56m (200 tan 16 = 56). i've given the searchlight sonars a beam geometry of elevation 90-116 (irl 100-116),

But if you set the beam of the active sonar from MinElevation=90 to MaxElevation=116, then the beam width would be 116-90 = 26 degrees, and the proper calculation for the depth of the submarine to be out of the beam at a distance of 200 meters would be: 200*tan(26) = 97 m... Why are you calculating the beam width as 116-100 = 16 degrees?? Do you think it should be calculated in this way due to a bug in the game???

Perhaps there is a bug in the game that calculates the depth necessary to be out of the beam as:

depth = distance*tan(MaxElevation-100)

and if this bug exists then when MaxElevation=100 the calculation would give 0, and perhaps then the result is discarded (as erroneous) and not applied at all in the simulation. But when you take MaxElevation=116 then the result is applied resulting in the effects you have reported. This could explain why the active sonars with narrow beams (MinElevation=90 MaxElevation=100) seem to bahave as if they had a very wide beam....

Can anybody check this in game ????

Regarding "Detection time", in the sim.cfg file it is stated:

"min detection time."


And regarding "Sensivity", in the sim.cfg file it is stated:

"at (sensitivity * max range) we have a double detection time"


Please, check my ideas in game and report the results here.

Thanks !!!!


Txema

[CB..]

on the noise factor AFAIK it controls the constant level of background noise that exists in the water -- the less noise there is the easier it is for the DD's to "hear" your screws-- rather like lowering the volume of the hyrophone ambient sounds so you can pick out the screw noises from the merchants more distinctly

mind you after the 1.4b patch i'm not sure if it still has any effect/
some of the entrys seem to be "dead" after the patch

[Krupp]

I'm in a hurry right now and don't know if this info has been mentioned before. Most likely is... take a look.


"technical and operational information of selected Asdic or Sonar sets. During World War II"


Link: http://jproc.ca/sari/index.html

Looked interesting anyway.

[caspofungin]

@krupp
that site is where i got some info re british asdics. also some admiralty reviews. couldn't find any specific info re us sonars, though...

@txema
you're right... but when i was initially testing it, i had beam geometry set at 90-106 degrees, so lost lock at 56m. saw some diagrams w/ the sonar beam set at approx 10 deg down, i'm assuming this has something to do w/ scatter from the surface. so it should be 100-116, i made it 90-116 because... well, i don't know.

also, re detection time, i'm fairly sure this is the "sweep" time. when i set it to 0, i got rid of most of the variability in detection ranges for various sensors. made me think that if the sensor missed you on 1 sweep, you would travel that much closer before it picked you up on the second sweep, if there's enough of a time difference.

re "at (sensitivity * max range) we have a double detection time"
yeah, i saw that in the sim.cfg file. not sure what to make of that specific statement though. you'd think that at a given range eg 100, a given sensitivity eg 1 -- then at range 100, you get double detection time. halve the sensitivity 0.5*100=50, so at range 50, you get double detection time. in testing, though, for me anyway, decreasing sensitivity increases the range you are picked up at for a given detection time. setting detection time to 0, logically, should nullify the effect of sensitivity, if our initial assumption is correct. that may be why we're getting longer detection ranges, rather than my "sweep time" assumption. my testing, however, doesn't bear this out -- decreasing sensitivity increases detection range.

anyway, although there is a sonar dead zone, hydrophone effect can still be picked up much closer -- min range is 0 or 10, can't remember. so if you jack your sub up to flank too soon, you'll be heard and the escort will alter course to drop on your head. the baffles are still dead zones for both asdic and h/e, so once the escort is directly overhead or past, you can safely accelerate.

if anyone has info re real life hydrophone limitations, we can certainly implement them easily enough.

re noise factor-- that's somewhat disappointing if all it is is ambient noise level. someone should try jacking it up to 100 or 1000, see what effect there is. i'd try myself, but at work.

regardless, feedback to this thread -- there's a lot of people tweaking and testing, we should get somewhere soon.

[gouldjg]

It seems as though we need to find a way so as if the hydro does pick up your turns, it should not be instantaneous before the DD copies your move.

Maybe it has to be up to players judgement when to change and turn and slow speed and speed up.

Uboat.net had some statement within it that although equipment was great near the end of the war. They were still gusessing on the last three hundred mtres.


But this game is so unforgiving that it beggers belief.

Can we put a plan into place to tackle each objective in turn.

problem

DD can be so dumb at times, they just do not react.

DD can be so deadly when they do infact launch it dc's.

Plan A = make DD smarter even if this means changing all to elite and veterern.

plan B = Make a test mission as explained before and then we can head of in what direction as to what we want to test.

plan C = Without cutting a essential element of the DD capabilities, make them blind on last 150 mtres both on passive active and Q sensors.

plan D = check if decoy hex file can be influenced to be more of a assistance i.e. make DD fire early etc. I know there is a figure or figures that seems to influence bubbles within the game. Are we sure that all decoys last only 3 minutes cos some numbers I have seen in this partivular file states 7, 15, etc etc. I am presuming it is not minutes.

Any more plans or any plans we should be dropping and getting back on track with original problem of the pin point dropping.

This is all :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

We need a genius to tabulate what is what in the game and other possible remedies.

I tend to agree with Red at the moment about the fact that a sailor has his head sticking out of the keel and is watching you while turning.

[Redwine]

Mmhh.....

May be i am crazy but.

I change all setting, and reduce their sonar active and pasie capabilities and they stiil be able to detect my full rudder turns when i do it even when they are just passing over me.......

Which sensor is rsponsible for this behavior ? :damn:

Taking a look into files i found it.

Radar...... its settings has a minimun range of zero, and a spot or beam angle from 0 to 180 :hmm: ???

Zero is up, and 90 is just horizontal.......... and 180 ...what is it ?

Is just down !! :88) :huh:

May be i am just more than crazy, in real life radar waves can not go under the surface, but it is not real life, and that we see is not a sea surface is only a texture.......

May be posible they are detecting now underwater by Radar ?

I will go to do changes in radar now and test, i will change

MinElevatio = 0
MaxElevation = 180

by

MinElevatio = 0
MaxElevation = 90

and minimun range from zero to 300 or 500

:up:

plan D = check if decoy hex file can be influenced to be more of a assistance i.e. make DD fire early etc. I know there is a figure or figures that seems to influence bubbles within the game. Are we sure that all decoys last only 3 minutes cos some numbers I have seen in this partivular file states 7, 15, etc etc. I am presuming it is not minutes.

Where are the decoy files gouldjg ? I want to delay its run on bubbles.

[Marhkimov]

I would suggest that for now, we leave decoys out of this. After all, we are trying to fix the pinpoint drops, NOT the decoys.

[CB..]

you could be right about the radar Red it may be glitched slightly allowing some sensor feedback below the surface at close range

you never know-- personally i don't trust the active sonar for the u-boats either - i'm not entirely sure it allways turns off when asked to- it may be slightly glitched allso--somtimes it doesn't get the answers following the technical historical and real life possible answers - you have to rememebr it is just a game and doesn't allways respond to simply writing the historical data into the files-- you have to get a bit spooky with it all

try adding the lose time to the hydrophone and experimenting with the amount of time (as the stock hydrophone doesn't have a set lose time amount) --ive just tried it and the added losetime absoloutely stumped them (i had it set too low)--

i'm not keen on the idea of using set missions to test these factors as the whole thing is more complex than that allows for--different weather conditions do affect the DD sensors both above and below the waterline--
different DD's have different sensors in different years- how can you cope with all those factors and more in a set mission? i just don't know how reliable the results will be when you come to play thru the campaign--

this is why i allways test this stuff in a proper campaign mission and continue to test it as i progress thru each career


with a cheat to make life easier--

crank up your contacts.cfg settings to these

[ContactSettings]
; Contact settings

Display Range To Opportunity Radio Contacts=8300 ;[>0] kilometers
Display Range To Important Radio Contacts=18500 ;[>0] kilometers
Decay Time For Important Radio Contacts=172800 ;[>0] seconds
Decay Time For Opportunity Radio Contacts=32400 ;[>0] seconds
Decay Time For Imprecise Sensor Contacts=600 ;[>0] seconds
Decay Time For Precise Sensor Contacts=60 ;[>0] seconds
Single Contact Min Size=1 ;[>0] minimum numbers of units in this type of group
Small Contact Min Size=3 ;[>0] minimum numbers of units in this type of group
Medium Contact Min Size=7 ;[>0] minimum numbers of units in this type of group
Large Contact Min Size=13 ;[>0] minimum numbers of units in this type of group


and you won't have any trouble at all finding convoys to run tests on-
and as you won't know which DD's and in what number you likely to meet over time you will get a far more balanced set of answers than trying to control every variable within a set mission--- for a start of you need to give the AI chance to breath by starting well outside the normal sensor range and so on--
that's my take on it all
it drives me crazy testing things in single missions- it's too tempting to jump to conclusions- at the very least you need to approach from out side sensor range of the convoy - conduct a proper a full attack on the merchants and make a full escape back to safety--only then can you make some sort of judgement on how the changes are working--
it's a lot of work but try to forget about it as your playing and enjoy the game and your test career

[Krupp]

First, I have no intentions to step on anyone's toes here and wan't to say you are doing wonderful job for the SH3 community. :)

I'm asking this only to make it clear to myself. I just had to take a look at those dat files when I installed the Timetravellers Tweaker program.

If all surface detection devices, including visual, have minbearing of 0 (bow)moving left and right towards stern, ending to maxbearing of 180. And minelevation 0 (bow), going over head to 180 (stern). So this way they cover the whole surfased area in their range limits.

This way the ships bow seems to be 0 point with this logig. Now if I have hydrophone settings: minelevation 80 - maxelevation 170, doesen't it mean that the hydrophone arc doesen't begin until pointing 80 degrees down and ends pointing backwards 170 degrees? Should there be negative values here? Or does the negative min values affect that way.

Does the negative min- and maxheight values make the bearing and elevation starting point for underwater device angles being something else than the bow (0)? I don't understand how could vertical axis be 0 when I look all the surface detection device values.

I'm not sure if I could make this to sound rational cos english isn't my native language. So it's easy to lose the point there :oops:

[Redwine]

you could be right about the radar Red it may be glitched slightly allowing some sensor feedback below the surface at close range .

I dont want to be happy before time about it, but i have not more Ubber DDs, may be that was the problem.......... need more test.

Do you any tweaking radar MaxElevation setting ?

About the test mision, i uderstand CB, but i chose the Barham and specially U-505 to test the slow down in performance because it is the mission with the hardest DDs, and all people have them.
Sure any definitive change must to be tested on missions with early and later technology DDs.
But now i am only making test to dicover wich file do wich thing.


@ Marhkimov :

Come-on Marh.... ;) is not for this topic, i just tired :damn: of those bubbles making noise around my hull when i run in silent running.



@ Krupp :

If we are not wrong, zero is just Vertical UP, 90 is horizontal...BOW, and 180 is just vertical DOWN.

Then a hydrophone set MinElevation = 80, MaxElevation = 170, is a sensor wich hear 10 degrees above the water surface...... up to 80 degrees under the surface.

[caspofungin]

re elevation -- 0 is straight up, 90 is dead ahead, 180 is straight down

@gouldj
plan C works. in my test mission w/ my test settings, if you're deep enough, the sonar will lose you eventually, distance depends on depth. if you're quiet (silent running) you won't be picked up on hydrophones, and there won't be any pinpoint drops. if you crank up your sub too soon, even though you're out of active sonar angles, you'll still be picked up on hydrophones, and the escort corrects. if you want to artificially inc the hydrophone dead zone, just inc the minimum range. however, i haven't seen anything historically regarding hydrophone dead zones in my net searches. the asdic dead zone is well documented, and is rpt is implemented w/ the settings on my download. the only issue i'd like to continue testing is changing sensitivity to get inc range on both hydrophones and asdic, and implementing historical info re hydrophones and us sonars.

re dec radar elevation to 90 -- shouldn't make too much difference, as minimum depth is already set at 0.

i'll rpt it -- w/ the settings available, there seems to be no ubersensor at close range. any pinpoint drops are either a result of you making too much sound and creating hydrophone effect, or by continuing on course, same speed, allowing the escort to drop on your predicted position.

try the test mission w/ your stealth meter on. run silent and deep, and you'll go green when the escort comes close enough and you're beneath the sonar. go to flank, and it'll go red, as the escort picks up the h/e. go silent, and it'll drop to green. try it. it works. alter the test mission to use a late war escort, w/ type 144 or 147 sonars, and it's a lot harder, just as it was irl.

things get a lot harder (as they should) when you have 2 escorts on you -- 1 will almost always have a sonar lock on you, getting free is a matter of maneuvering to break out of both beams simultaneously. if we could get dc explosions to have a negative effect on sensors (?noise factor) then you could use the well-documented post-explosion sensor blackout to get depth/distance, making things easier. and more realistic.


the test misison is set up w/ an early war veteran escort, no depth-finding sonar, no radar, calm conditions, trying to keep things as simple as possible to minimize variables. no doubt, in game, there's going to be different effects. but i believe those effects are going to be due to having multiple escorts attacking you, wave effect on sensors, etc.

finally, i appreciate the difference between realism and gameplay. but as things are right now -- personally, i believe the sensors are nerfed. after attacking a convoy, unless you're spotted on the surface, you have a free run away. the escorts rarely find you if you're dived unless you make noise (reloading, high speed). when they do find you, they have ubersensors (in stock) and overpowered dc's. if it was a viable tactic irl to dive below the sonar beam and escape, then i think we should be able to do that in game. if irl making noise had the effect of bringing escorts down on your head, then i believe that should be implemented too. using historical sensor limitations is just a start. if irl escorts could pick you up on a type 128 asdic at 2000m under ideal conditions, and we have to inc max range to 6000 to get the same effect, then so be it. but i believe the current beam geometry reflects real life limitations relatively well. of course, if further testing shows things to be out of whack, than i'm more than willing to work to get things right. just my minor contribution to the mod community that's made the stock game so much better. :yep:

also, if anyone has printed info on various sensors, we could certainly do with it.

[Redwine]

re dec radar elevation to 90 -- shouldn't make too much difference, as minimum depth is already set at 0.


I note that, i note too, radar beam is a cilinder not a semisphere (half sphere, i do not know the name in english).
I think it due to the value MaxHeight and MinHeigt, if it was a half sphere with set a range is enought.
Nay way even with the MinHeight limit, i do not know wich one override wich one, better to set it at surface angle in concordance with MinHeight = 0.



i'll rpt it -- w/ the settings available, there seems to be no ubersensor at close range. any pinpoint drops are either a result of you making too much sound and creating hydrophone effect, or by continuing on course, same speed, allowing the escort to drop on your predicted position.

Yes agree, you can remain stealth, but when you make sound and the DDs detect you they are too much hard to shake in later war times.



try the test mission w/ your stealth meter on. run silent and deep, and you'll go green when the escort comes close enough and you're beneath the sonar. go to flank, and it'll go red, as the escort picks up the h/e. go silent, and it'll drop to green. try it. it works. alter the test mission to use a late war escort, w/ type 144 or 147 sonars, and it's a lot harder, just as it was irl.

Tested your missionand it works very fine. :up:
But when run U-505 it is near to imposible to shake them on you using your files, even with only one DDs preying on you. :hmm:
Later war DDs, as those american still Ubber. :dead:



things get a lot harder (as they should) when you have 2 escorts on you -- 1 will almost always have a sonar lock on you, getting free is a matter of maneuvering to break out of both beams simultaneously. if we could get dc explosions to have a negative effect on sensors (?noise factor) then you could use the well-documented post-explosion sensor blackout to get depth/distance, making things easier. and more realistic.

So wonderful if we can obtain that behavior and use their own depth charges against them. :smug:
Still testing here.



the test misison is set up w/ an early war veteran escort, no depth-finding sonar, no radar, calm conditions, trying to keep things as simple as possible to minimize variables. no doubt, in game, there's going to be different effects. but i believe those effects are going to be due to having multiple escorts attacking you, wave effect on sensors, etc.

Yes same comment as above, in this mission is easy to survive, you need to do nothing special in skill, but when use your files in a mission with later war DDs as U-505..... agh..... they still so hard.




finally, i appreciate the difference between realism and gameplay. but as things are right now -- personally, i believe the sensors are nerfed. after attacking a convoy, unless you're spotted on the surface, you have a free run away. the escorts rarely find you if you're dived unless you make noise (reloading, high speed). when they do find you, they have ubersensors (in stock) and overpowered dc's. if it was a viable tactic irl to dive below the sonar beam and escape, then i think we should be able to do that in game. if irl making noise had the effect of bringing escorts down on your head, then i believe that should be implemented too. using historical sensor limitations is just a start. if irl escorts could pick you up on a type 128 asdic at 2000m under ideal conditions, and we have to inc max range to 6000 to get the same effect, then so be it. but i believe the current beam geometry reflects real life limitations relatively well. of course, if further testing shows things to be out of whack, than i'm more than willing to work to get things right. just my minor contribution to the mod community that's made the stock game so much better. :yep:

also, if anyone has printed info on various sensors, we could certainly do with it.

Yes, this was extensively discused in SH2 times, it is normal to stay on this descusion on SH3.

A submerged sub, wich do not make noise, no reloads, no repairs, runing at low speed was near to undetected.

You was detected when you rise periscope, blow tanks, run fast to maneuver, reload, repair.

We need to remember DDs depth chrages was the most unsuccesful weapon against subs in the war, most subs was destroyed by aircrafts, and mines, even by DDs raming on them.
DDs become dangerous only in the last year or year and half of the war.

I i do not remember bad, lethalities by surface unit was about 1 % / 2 % at early days of war, and about 30 % / 40 % at later days of war.

About low than only one third of the U-Boote lossed in combat actions was sinked by surface ships, about 250, and not all them by depth charges.

U427, attacking the convoy RA.66, 29 april 1945, was egaged and was attacked by canadian escorts, HMCS Haida and Iroquois..........
They launch 678 depth charges over the U427......... he scaped and survive.......

U744, a Type VIIC, 6 march 1944, attacking canadian convoy C2, under command of kapitan Heinz Blischke, was engaged by escorts HMS Kenilworth Castle, Icarus, and HMCS Chilliwack, Fennel, Chaudiere, Gatineau and St Catharines.......... U744 was under attack during 36 hours, was forced to surface due to oxigen need, but was not destroyed after 36 hours of attack......

There are many histories like this.............

Words of Kapitan Erik Topp :

" we was never afraid of their depth charges ........."


Russian sunks only 7 U-boote during the all WW 2, and they had used near of 90,000 depth charges to do it.

This was due the lack of technology in detection, wich was not in their hands, but was in hands of north americans and englands but so later in the war.

I think so the matter is not to adjust historical values on sensors, instead obtain a historical DDs behavior and survive probabilities.

:up: WAR TO UBBER DDs ! :rock:

[Hartmann]

In the u-505 mission i always have to do very extreme things to be detected, like surface the boat :huh: .

stay at close range near to the scorts with scope and the snorchel out at flank speed don´t work.

seems that all are looking underwater and not at the horizont. :down:


i´ts very difficult stay detected but when they detect me ( red icon and a mensage) they went wild running against me, launching depth charges and mortars.

I crash dived to 150 metters but they are looking me and was impossible to scape. :dead: no matter what meneuver i did.

perhaps they have a underwater camera or a rope tied to the sub like Redwine say :rotfl:

[CB..]

i you know just once i wish the game devs would spend a fraction less time and money on the graphics (nice as good graphics are) and a fraction more time and money on the AI- -at the end of the day it is the AI that makes or breaks a game and i can't help worrrying that what will limit our ability to tune the sensors will be the AI-
there is something about the radar here-- i nerfed the radar on the DD's and ran a patrol- not only did they at no point detect me submerged (late 1942 elite crews with modded double range hydrophones LOL) they still didn't even bother to check my area after sinking three ships with TI's (visible steam wakes remember :hmm: ) AND i've added four extra elite DD's to every convoy in the campaign !! so i was up against 8 elite DD's
- i was able to surface well within visual range of the DD's (around 5000 metres broad daylight- no fog- calm seas) they should have gained a visual contact on me with no problem at all- but they didn't- so i chugged away-

it allmost as if - if the radar is nerfed everything else goes down the pan as-well?

they don't program the AI to think- they only program the AI to react---as long as the AI simply reacts to situations instead of thinking about them we'll be left with flawed AI behaviuor and rather basic gameplay-- they don't have to be Einstien, they just need to be able to adapt to different situations with some sense of purpose---give decent thinking AI poor sensors and it will adapt it's tactics to compensate and still be a threat--give poor AI uber sensors and it will allways either kill you easily or miss you altogether, with nothing interesting imbetween
it think thats the limitation were up against-- how to create a "sweet spot" in the AI behaviuor by allowing them to detect you (essentail as they allways need to be woken up in order to start performing?) with-out them switching from useless to uber for no apparent reason--

i found it strange that once equiped with radar the DD's actually seem to stop use-ing their visual sensor altogether- it seems to use the technically strongest sensor with-out checking to see if it is working correctly

the AI in the patrol i've just run simply did not (in effect) post any lookouts on the bridge it just simply assumed that if i was surfaced it would detect me with it's radar--i'd nerfed the radar so instead of running a visual scan it just assumed i wasn't there---doesn't explain why i wasn't detected when submerged tho-- or why they didn't check out the torp wakes--going to be a long tedious job this!

[Redwine]

In the u-505 mission i always have to do very extreme things to be detected, like surface the boat :huh: .

i´ts very difficult stay detected but when they detect me ( red icon and a mensage) they went wild running against me, launching depth charges and mortars.

I crash dived to 150 metters but they are looking me and was impossible to scape. :dead: no matter what meneuver i did.

perhaps they have a underwater camera or a rope tied to the sub like Redwine say :rotfl:

Yes, same happens here, disregarding wich sensor we touch is the same, they do not detect you if you dont to any stupid thing, but when you had been detected, it is near to imposible to break contact disregarding what technic you use.

We need to found how to manage that level of skill. :88)

[Redwine]

i you know just once i wish the game devs would spend a fraction less time and money on the graphics (nice as good graphics are) and a fraction more time and money on the AI- -at the end of the day it is the AI that makes or breaks a game and i can't help worrrying that what will limit our ability to tune the sensors will be the AI

Completelly agree........ i remeber SH1 AI, i only want that.

[HEMISENT]

Gouldjg.
The test mission is done. I just PM'd you.

[CB..]

i you know just once i wish the game devs would spend a fraction less time and money on the graphics (nice as good graphics are) and a fraction more time and money on the AI- -at the end of the day it is the AI that makes or breaks a game and i can't help worrrying that what will limit our ability to tune the sensors will be the AI

Completelly agree........ i remeber SH1 AI, i only want that.


or even AOTD!!
for my stuff for SH2
the noise/echo factor (you could add it to the DD UDF files in SH2) was the key in the end to making life interesting ala DES5 etc it was a stock entry that actually only appeared in one seldom seen DD - once i found that entry and used in all the DD's like this

[FRAMEWORK]

[RADAR]
AspectFront = 100.0
AspectSide = 100.0
AspectRear = 100.0

[SOUND]
EchoFront = 10.0
EchoSide = 50.0
EchoRear = 10.0
Noise = 10.0

this covered both the hyrophones and the sonar and allowed for differentail sonar sensitivity depending on the DD's angle of the bow and you subs aspect to it---took me over a year of messing about before i got it half way decent (from my point of view)

we don't have the same flexibility in the same areas in SH3 -- it will be a matter of finding the key elements and perhaps a few hidden entrys as above

have you tried using the hieght factor for the radar ?

im going to try adding a 2metre hightfactor to the SH3 radar in the sim.cfg and see if that does anything interesting--- i'm hoping it will add in some unpredictability on the DD's ability to detect you with radar on the surface-- it will only be able to "see" the very top on the conning tower rather than the whole surfaced area of the sub-
might allso affect the other sensors aswell as the radar seems to be a trigger point for other sensor sweeps

it's all a bit depressing tho how little thought is given to the AI by game devs-- after all if a small hand held computer game console can play a decent game of chess (with all the immense complications that entails) i don't know why something even a fraction as "intelliegnt" can be used in games---be really cool to see some thinking going on on the bridges of the DD's- it's perfectly possible--- the game devs just don't think it's important enough to bother

:damn: i just lost ALL but one of my officers in attack by a lone DD - watch crew didn't see it and it blew the sub to bits---still had 64% hull integrity so dived and tried to sort out the mess - and what a mess it was too!! half the crew dead -- the DD made a DC pass and killed the last surviving officer-- then the DD left--managed to get a repair team together and stop the flooding/ repair the batterys etc but even tho the boat was still sea worthy there was nothing i could do--without an officer to man the helm station the game won't let you maneuver-- so i couldn't surface--and i couldn't even exit the patrol/return to base whilst submerged---catch 22-- there's summat else they didn't thnk about :damn:

i actually had the DAS BOOT moment a couple of patrols ago-- same thing got clobbered by a DD whilst surfaced (my watch crew are useless it seems to me lol) massive flooding 60% hull intergity major system dame right thru the boat-- EVERYTHING was smashed!! and the sub sank-- and sank -- and sank-- then it hit bottom at 130 metres (and due to my modded damage system it didn't kill the boat) so we lay there on the bottom running about like demented flys trying to repair everything and contain the flooding--- gave up on the front torpedo room and quarters and moved every one back to the aft areas-- stopped the flooding in the rest of the boat but sadly the game registered the boat as destroyed when the front torpedo/ quaters room were fully flooded-- real shame that as it would have been highly interesting trying to see if i could salavage the boat- might have to have a look at that se if that's possible

me thinks the game devs didn't think we'd be interested in this sort of thing--only in blowing things up :nope:

[Redwine]

or even AOTD!!

Agree too.



have you tried using the hieght factor for the radar ?


No... not yet.



im going to try adding a 2metre hightfactor to the SH3 radar in the sim.cfg and see if that does anything interesting---
might allso affect the other sensors aswell as the radar seems to be a trigger point for other sensor sweeps

Try a negative value :88) may trigger some sound sensors.



it's all a bit depressing tho how little thought is given to the AI by game devs-- after all if a small hand held computer game console can play a decent game of chess (with all the immense complications that entails) i don't know why something even a fraction as "intelliegnt" can be used in games---be really cool to see some thinking going on on the bridges of the DD's- it's perfectly possible--- the game devs just don't think it's important enough to bother

Understand you. I feel the same.


me thinks the game devs didn't think we'd be interested in this sort of thing--only in blowing things up :nope:

They had done a game, not a sim. ;)
We need to work a lot to aproach it to a sim, remember SH2..... what a lot of job. :dead:

[caspofungin]

before changing anything, i recommend dropping the "detection time" variable to 0 -- seems to reduce the variability in detection range. it makes testing tweaks re sensitivity and other variables a lot easier, as any changes are more evident -- just good science, reducing the number of factors affecting your dependent variable :know:

also, decreasing sensitivity seems to increase detection range -- can anyone confirm?

i totally agree w/ cb's comments re game ai -- it's the ai that gives a game challenge and replayability, imho. and there's only a handful of tactics for a given situation, as things got standardized by the allies relatively quickly eg creeping attack, operation plaster, use of massed snowflake flares. how hard would it have been to implement? too bad the dev schedule got shortened -- we're the ones that got short-changed.

[Krupp]

Redwine wrote:
If we are not wrong, zero is just Vertical UP, 90 is horizontal...BOW, and 180 is just vertical DOWN.

Then a hydrophone set MinElevation = 80, MaxElevation = 170, is a sensor wich hear 10 degrees above the water surface...... up to 80 degrees under the surface.


Fair enough. Wasn't questioning your knowledge in the first place. Only mine.

So if I'm surfaced, I should be able to sneak behing an enemy ship undetected (wich I'm not) with these visual settings for AI.

AI_Visual

MinRange = 0
MaxRange = 12000
MinHeight = 1
MaxHeight = 10000
MinBearing = 0
MaxBearing = 180
MinElevation = 0 (UP)
MaxElevation = 180 (DOWN)
MinSurface = 0

When I draw this to paper, it shows that the enemy isn't looking behind his 3-to-9 line at all. Half of his visual (frontal) hemisphere is under water :o

Well, nevermind. I don't need to understand this anyway :D

[Redwine]

@ CB :

About Radar trigger :

I note the Speed factor is responsible of Radar Trigger, if you had setting in example in U-505 a Speed factor of 15, the two DDs around you are cruising at 19knots...... they are deaf, even if you put flank speed they can not to hear you.

Speed factor is a speed limit at wich the sensor can works, then they has no pasive alert, then they not start to ping, they need another alert, as visual or radar to trigger the sensors, when they look you or detect you by radar, they inmediatelly reduce speed to activate their sound sensors.


before changing anything, i recommend dropping the "detection time" variable to 0 -- seems to reduce the variability in detection range. it makes testing tweaks re sensitivity and other variables a lot easier, as any changes are more evident -- just good science, reducing the number of factors affecting your dependent variable :know:

also, decreasing sensitivity seems to increase detection range -- can anyone confirm?

Thanks i will try.


So if I'm surfaced, I should be able to sneak behing an enemy ship undetected (wich I'm not) with these visual settings for AI.

AI_Visual

MinRange = 0
MaxRange = 12000
MinHeight = 1
MaxHeight = 10000
MinBearing = 0
MaxBearing = 180
MinElevation = 0 (UP)
MaxElevation = 180 (DOWN)
MinSurface = 0

When I draw this to paper, it shows that the enemy isn't looking behind his 3-to-9 line at all. Half of his visual (frontal) hemisphere is under water :o

Well, nevermind. I don't need to understand this anyway :D

I think so they looks back well due to these values left and right.

MinBearing = 0
MaxBearing = 180

With these they stablis a half circle in front of you

MinElevation = 0 (UP)
MaxElevation = 180 (DOWN)

With these values they stablish a half reavolution left and a half revolution right for that half circle.

a henisphere left and a hemisfere right.

Finally they stablish a complete sphere, why ? you can not see underwater..... same as with radar.

As i say before, there is a sailor with his head inside the water. :rotfl:

[Kaleunt]

Some precisions:
Over water from front to rear :
Min Height= 0, it's the elevation at sea level (0°) so parallel to the horizon
viewed from the bow of a ship.
Max Heigth= 90 it is the line of sight perpendicular to the horizon (max elevation of an AA gun, for exemple)
Max Height=180 tis is the line of sight parallel to the horizon but rearward.
The oposite for underwater height range
the values goes from 90° front (mirror of 0° above water) to 180° rear
if you put a value of MinHeight=0 to a sonar sensor, the sonar will search the skies!
Bearing is = to traverse for guns

[Txema]

AI_Visual

MinRange = 0
MaxRange = 12000
MinHeight = 1
MaxHeight = 10000
MinBearing = 0
MaxBearing = 180
MinElevation = 0 (UP)
MaxElevation = 180 (DOWN)
MinSurface = 0

When I draw this to paper, it shows that the enemy isn't looking behind his 3-to-9 line at all. Half of his visual (frontal) hemisphere is under water

I think the Bearing angles are measured from the bow direction... MinBearing=0 represents the bow direction (forward), and MaxBearing=180 represents the stern direction (backward). Then the arc covered by the sensor is assumed to be symmetrical with respect to the bow: MinBearing=0, MaxBearing=180, represent a covered arc from 0 to 180 degrees from bow, and from 0 to -180 degrees from bow, and therefore the 360 degrees around the ship.

Txema

[Redwine]

Some precisions:
Over water from front to rear :
Min Height= 0, it's the elevation at sea level (0°) so parallel to the horizon
viewed from the bow of a ship.
Max Heigth= 90 it is the line of sight perpendicular to the horizon (max elevation of an AA gun, for exemple)
Max Height=180 tis is the line of sight parallel to the horizon but rearward.
The oposite for underwater height range
the values goes from 90° front (mirror of 0° above water) to 180° rear
if you put a value of MinHeight=0 to a sonar sensor, the sonar will search the skies!
Bearing is = to traverse for guns


Hi Kaleunt !
Do not confuse Height with Elevation, elevation is given in degrees, but height in meters.
0, 90, 180 are for bearing and elevation not for height.

Min and max heights are the floor and ceiling limits for you beams.

For sonars pasive and active, min height must to be negative, underwater in example for hydrophone

MaxHeight = 0 (surface) ( -5 > 5m under the surface)
MinHeight = -300 (300m depth)
MaxElevation = 95 ( 5 deg under the horizontal, at surface or 5m under the surface)
MinElevation = 80 ( 10 deg up the horizontal, at surface or 5 m under the surface)

:up:

Then the arc covered by the sensor is assumed to be symmetrical with respect to the bow: MinBearing=0, MaxBearing=180, represent a covered arc from 0 to 180 degrees from bow, and from 0 to -180 degrees from bow, and therefore the 360 degrees around the ship.

Txema

Agree. :up:

[Kaleunt]

Sorry, was a mistype. I i wanted to talk aof "Elevation", just to give some
info for anyone wanting to tweak some values.

[Redwine]

Sorry, was a mistype. I i wanted to talk aof "Elevation", just to give some
info for anyone wanting to tweak some values.

Well, elevation zero is just pointing up, 90 is forward, and 180 is just down of the point of zero height.

in example if you put

MinElevation = 90
MaxElevation = 180

you are sacaning a quarter of circle in front and under you, but if you add

MaxHeight = -200
MinHeight = -500

you are descending this quarter of circle (and the sensor) 200 meters under you, and a sub in fron of you at 100m depth will be not detected.

[Krupp]

Thanks for the answers :)

Redwine wrote:
"As i say before, there is a sailor with his head inside the water."

:nope: <---- Poor frozen "sonarman" seeking U-Boots....

"keep up the good work!" Looking forward to see a great mod someday :yep: ... I'm about to have my copy of "U-Boat commanders handbook in few days... Need to read that first and then start a new career one day.

K

[Kaleunt]

Looking at the sonar values in the AI-sensor.dat file you
have a minimum elevation of 80 for all passives sonars and 90 for all
active sonars, their max elevation values are 170 and 140 respectively.
Above water it is the oposite, elevation of the radar for exemple:
the min elevation is 0 and the max is 180.
I just want to show that the elevation is divided in two opposite hemispheres 0 up to 180 above water and 90 to 180 below.
In the gun_sim.dat you will observe the same. A 14 inch barell
as a Min Elevation of -3 and a max elevation of 40.

[Redwine]

:-j :rock: :P

If i am not wrong....... i catch them. :sunny:

I cant believe how sensors works, as i wrote before, we need to open our mind and not asume the sensors works as in real life or with real life limitations.

I start up this WAR against Ubber Dds due to the "incredible' fact, they can detect my full rudder turns even when they was just at my back !! :damn:

And they do it inmediately, instantaneously !! :damn:

What a sensor was they using !! :damn:

An uderkeel video camera ! :dead:

Or a sailor with his head into the water !

-Glubh.....glubh....They are turning to port captain... glubh.... glub......! - :rotfl:

They was just over me and my Threat Alert was RED !
RED ! why for ?!

I think so i had discovered it.
As mentioned before, open mind and do not think sensors works as in real life.

1] >>>>>>>

MaxHeight and MinHeight was two of the guilty......

In my ignorance i soupose the Max and Min Height was two planes surface wich both determines the limit of the sensor, as if you cut the beam with a knife.

Not.....

Max and MIn Height are the limit for a imaginary line over wich one the sensor can displaced at its pleasure.

I note a strange thing in radar, if you determine angle and rage, why you need Max and Min Height ?

Apparently sensors are limited by a combinatio of some 3d bodies.

To understand how i soupose them works just imagine :

A hydrophone with settings like this.

Min Elevation = 90 (bow)
Max Elevation = 120 (30 degrees unerwater)

Now imagine you just 200m in front of the DDs but 300m depth, it must not be able to detect you...... he can only detect 115m depth at 200m far.

Not..... it is valid for Max Height = 0 in example.

But our sensors as Min Height = -300

The sensor can descend 300m, and the DD put the sensor on you nose. :damn: :down: :stare: :dead: :damn:


I made some test from last night later, adjusting a in example :

MaxHeight = 0
MinHeight = -25

Now they can detect me at far, but when they pass over me...... I HAVE MY THREAT ALERT GREEN !!!!!!

Just imagine the sensor as those showers which are mounted over a slider vetical tube having height adjust.

The sensor is the shower, and the slider tube is the Max and Min Height, along wich one the sensor can slide at its pleasure as the shower.



2] >>>>>

I cant detect how to adjust the wide of the beam of the active sonar.

Yes we have Max and Min bearing, i have adjusted Jungsman values, 0/60.

This means my sensor has capability from bow to 60 left and 60 right. It is 120.

But at any place says it is a real life 3 degrees wide beam displacing or sweep from 60 left to 60 right.

I think so it is a super wide fat beam of 120 degrees wide, giving a super ping capabilities to DDs.


Values used in this explanation are not importan, are only for explanation use, and to discover how sensores works.

Undestanding how values works, and how them affect DDs behavior we can now to found a set of values to give a real posibility to survive with those deadly american DDs in U-505 mission.

Any opinion, any test ?

[caspofungin]

@redwine

i'm not so sure. with the settings i'm testing, w/out changing min/maxheight, i go green in front of the escort, even if they've been actively pinging me. distance depends on depth. if you're making noise however, you stay red until they drop the dc's. so if you're green, and change course, you can move away from the drop point. if you're green and wait until the escort is directly above or past, you can hit the accelerator and they won't hear you, allowing you to evade.

i agree that w/out some sort of alarm, the escorts don't actively search for you. that's too bad, as in irl, asdic was pinging 24/7 at sea. if we could find the state variable that makes a dd go "on alert"...

re visual elevation -- let's not forget about aircraft. if we set the min elevation as 0 in ai_visual, we'll be nerfing air patrols -- they won't be able to see below their nose.

keep at it, guys. we may be hosed by the lack of an sdk and limitied by the basic game ai, but at least we can make things a little better. :up:

[Redwine]

re visual elevation -- let's not forget about aircraft. if we set the min elevation as 0 in ai_visual, we'll be nerfing air patrols -- they won't be able to see below their nose.

keep at it, guys. we may be hosed by the lack of an sdk and limitied by the basic game ai, but at least we can make things a little better. :up:

May be the same in radar case, the aircraft need a pitch dow in the radar beam, but 180 looks exagerated.

We need to identify airborne radars.

[CB..]

:cool: that's interesting Red!!
so what your saying is the DD sensors are moving up and down in the water like a towed array allmost--or an elevator with a sailor in looking out thru a hole --so the sensor is not fixed in position but moves out side the hull of the DD to look for you
tell you what it is a weird system what ever it is--

my last test had me leaving port and heading into the channel after a reported convoy-- spotted a lone Clemson DD so i dived and when i thought it was safe i surfaced (didn't check as i was being impatient) i actually surfaced right along side the DD (LOL :huh: ) i dived quickly again expecting a lot of trouble- but got none- it spotted me-- opened fire missed with it's main guns then half heartedly made one DC drop before abling away-- it was less than 3000 metres away--fairly useless--

a little further north i ran into a hunter killer group- it spotted me so i dived and they (three of them) came over made a half hearted couple of dc drops then vanished off to the south-- fairly useless again--

at this point i allmost gave up the test seemed obviuos the DD's didn't work well with the settings-- but i thought "you never know" so proceeded north again and eventually caught up with the convoy and positioned for the attack--

between me and the merchants was one Corvette (which i had actually given the same sensors as the Clemson in a previuos experiment)

i was submerged so it had no warning of my presense-- and i crept in at 1/3 rd i was behind it at around 1000 metres when it started pinging me (pretty much the same situation had allready passed safely with the original lone clemson and the hunter killer group- so i wasn't worried)

Well it proceeded to anihlate me from stem to stern--after three or four DC runs i was dead---

i don't know what to think to be honest!!

if i had run the hunter killer group and lone Clemson as a seperate test i would have assumed that i needed to beef the sensors up

and if i had run the convoy attack as a seperate test i would have assumed i needed to nerf the sensors a little more--


as it was -all three events occured within the same test
:damn: :hmm:

[Redwine]

Yes, CB, understand you, i mentioned befor, i note some "random" behavior too. :88)

Try adjusting Max and Min Height near the surface.
Try narrowing the active sonar beam, it is 180 deg wide by default, 120 (60L-60R) with Jungmans settings, 180 is a crazy thing, if 180 is the limit for the sweep arc, OK, but it works as the wide of the beam, and it is not real, is a superwide ping.
Narrowing the active sonar will limit both, beam wide and sweep arc, may be not real, but it is a program limitation, we can not set the beam wide.
Making it more narrow we enforce them to locate you with pasive sensor and iluminate you with the active more in front of them.

Try and comment.

[Kaleunt]

Having worked a lot on the scene.dat file to adjust the scale of the 16km
visibilty mod. I can say that the max and min range are tied to the SHIII 3D world. The scale is given by the camera value wich is set to "1000"
stock game, knowing that, you will discover that the world as a scale of"20" over horizon and "10" under the horizon, and the light as a scale of "25", multiply these values by 1000 and you have the scale in meters
of the dynamic world of SHIII. 20000m over horizon, 10000m under horizon and light displayed to 25000m. In 16km visibility mod the scale of the camera is 2000 so all other values are doubled, 40000m over horizon, 20000m under horizon and 50000 light.

[caspofungin]

@cb
interesting. what are your settings in sim.cfg and ai_sensors?

the variability is part of the reason why i run a simple test first -- obtain settings which give you an expected behaviour, then add more ships or the like and see what changes.

@kaleunt
thanks for the info. any ideas about the sensor changes and what each variable does?

[Txema]

I cant detect how to adjust the wide of the beam of the active sonar.

Yes we have Max and Min bearing, i have adjusted Jungsman values, 0/60.

This means my sensor has capability from bow to 60 left and 60 right. It is 120.

But at any place says it is a real life 3 degrees wide beam displacing or sweep from 60 left to 60 right.

I think so it is a super wide fat beam of 120 degrees wide, giving a super ping capabilities to DDs.


I think this effect is modelled by setting the "Detection time" for the Sonar much higher than that for the Radar or Hydrophones. In this way the much larger sweeping time needed by the sonar to cover the whole arc is properly modelled.

Txema

[CB..]

will have to mull this all over-- as i'm allready running with doubled DD hydrophone range i'm not sure what difference any fine tuning would make-- with doubled range they should detect me with little difficulty every time regardless of the weather etc--

ran another test patrol same settings as before--

the heightfactor =2
on the radar worked nicely as i got a response from the lead DD (one of the normally uber american jobs) it came out to investigate but as i dived early it didn't find me and went back to the convoy -as it was rough seas this seemed about right-- the hunter killer group in the previuos mission had been able to find me with radar from a great distance and di instigate an attack-- it was calm in that patrol and area--so fairly realistic and dynamic radar effeciency-- i like that --

but as i snuck past into the convoy - i was able to sink two ships and the escorts (all 8 of them) remain at their posts around the out side of the convoy at the normal distance--- at no point did the AI recognise that an attack was taking place and order a DD to investigate---

this isn't directly related to the sensors--

as normally the DD's position themselves on the nose tail and flanks of the convoy at such a distance that any submerged sub in the centre of the convoy is actually well outside the DD's hydrophone - and of course sonar range---

so what if anything tells the DD's to come in close and investigate if a ship is torpedoed?

their sensors? impossible -- your well out side their range--

visual contact with the torpedoed ship? --unlikely that they are that intelligent- and as is often the case even when the torpedoed ship is in full view of the DD's they don't move from their normal patrol positions

so what is going on?

even with no sensors at all the DD's should investigate the torpedoing of a ship in their convoy- they should come over and have a look round
it's not complicated really--
if a ship on the outside left of the convoy gets torped then look on the outside left same on the right- if a ship in the center of the convoy getes torped then go into the convoy and search

and granted sometimes this is exactly what happens--

BUT as the DD's are out side sensor range of the sub when this order is given to investigate- what gives the order?

where is the convoy commander AI in effect
what changes i make to the sensors should have no effect at all on the instruction to investiagte a torpedoed ship --yet it does--

figure that one out and we're getting some where--

what we want is

A) the DD's to allways properly investigate when a ship is attacked--
B)the DD's to allways put up some sort of determined defense of the convoy (it is a game after all)
C)the DD's to not be so uber in that defense that it becomes impossible to escape again after or during the attack--(again it is a game after all!)
D) the DD's not to be so weak that it becomes too easy to escape after or during an attack (same reason)

wether you look at it from a gameplay or realism point of view (or both) it's basically the same box of tricks;

why should a DD need uber sensors in order to investigate a sinking of one of the ships in it's convoy--some thing tells me that's the key to the AI dumb-ass/uber killer personality switch

as you can tell i'm coming in on this from a more general point of view
looking for hopefully some sort of feel to the problem -- for example why does lowering the radar effeciency effect the AI behaviuor so dramatically?

is it because it uses the same radar as used on the aircraft? which is designed for scanning both horizontally AND underneath the aircraft?
(as red hinted this would be critical!)

[Kaleunt]

If the underwater hemisphere is the mirror of the sky hemisphere
the value are mirrored too, but inverted. If the elevation over horizon goes from 0° to 180° bow to stern, we can assume that the underwater
elevation goes from 180°to 0° bow to stern so a vertical disk is read the following way; 0°front, 90° up, 180° rear over horizon and 0° rear, 90°down, 180° front underwater. We obtain, this way, a 90° vertical minimum elevation with a depth running from -10m to -300m going up to 140°
in front of the DD, so the sonar field of detection is stepper than in real world, explaining why a DD at the vertical of your Uboat never loose the contact.

[caspofungin]

i'm getting there, and starting to understand things a little more...

1. inc noise factor ridiculously nerfs escort hydrophones -- at 50, they can't pick me up repairing, flank speed. tweaking this value down to try and get a level where dc explosions makes them lose hydrophone effect.

2. in my initial test, min height -10, sonar beam elevation 90-116 (i believe that sky and water hemispheres are not mirrored -- 0 straight up, 90 dead level, 180 straight down), hydrophones nerfed.

results -- if i was at 150m, sonar contact lost (they stopped pinging, stealh meter green) at about 800m distance, at 70m depth contact lost at approx 400m distance. this didn't correlate to a 26 degree sonar beam -- until i subtracted 10m (the min depth). then the numbers make sense.

test -- set min depth to 0, hydrophones again nerfed w/ noise factor, now the range of contact loss corresponds to a 26 degree sonar beam (irl beams were 16 deg wide, but in technical diagrams they always seemed to be angled down slightly.) eg at depth 100m, contact lost at approx 500m, at 50m lost at approx 250m. the actual numbers, when calculated, give a beam of 11-15 degrees, i believe this error is due to poor range calculation by myself. i suppose i could be exact, run a test wher my sub has s-gerat and ping the escort for range, but things are close enough for me -- in terms of beam geometry. we can always set min elevation as 92-100 to simulate surface effect.

so, think i have the basics sorted. the escort can ping you while you're w/in the actual beam, loses contact when you're out. at that point, all detection is hydrophone based -- if you're running silent, he won't detect you. if you are in the baffles of the escort, you're invisible to him regardless of depth, speed, noise making.

[Redwine]

If the underwater hemisphere is the mirror of the sky hemisphere
the value are mirrored too, but inverted. If the elevation over horizon goes from 0° to 180° bow to stern, we can assume that the underwater
elevation goes from 180°to 0° bow to stern so a vertical disk is read the following way; 0°front, 90° up, 180° rear over horizon and 0° rear, 90°down, 180° front underwater. We obtain, this way, a 90° vertical minimum elevation with a depth running from -10m to -300m going up to 140°
in front of the DD, so the sonar field of detection is stepper than in real world, explaining why a DD at the vertical of your Uboat never loose the contact.

That you wrote may works fine as explanation of why they can detect us when we are just under them.

But did you tested the angles settings works in that way ?
Because if it is true, we hade taked a very worn way.


Any way, with my actual settings i finally can manage those deadly DDs.

I can scape fro the 5 DDs of the u-505 mission, i do nothing stupid and i can be way from them, i back ..... and pass under them.

Bad idea, they prey on my all five DDs, vary hard.

I play this mission with this behavior 3 times, always can scape from them, but vary hard, Hull Integrity between 58 and 38 %, hitted many times betwee 4 and 8 times in the 3 missions.

The only problem is they do not detect me initially, i start up between 2 DDs, at short distance and put flank speed at periscope depth and my threat alert only change from vivid green to a dirty green not more.

When i rise up my periscope, this two nearest DDs start on prey on me, the others far DDs not.

I shoot a salvo of torpedoes against the Carrier, and only when i sunk it, the other 3 DDs start to prey on me.

Then with 5 Ubber DDs hunting me, the mission become so hard, but finally after some time y manage to escape from them looking the red lines into the map, and attempting to go to a clear zone all time, leting them back.

After some time i can scape but always with between 4 and 9 hits on me, and hard flooding and 3 or 4 compartements hited, and my reapir team working constantly.

still testing.

[caspofungin]

what's left?

sorting out sensitivity. at present, my sim.cfg has sonar sensitivity at 0.0001. start getting pinged at approx 1000m by an early war escort. will try to get active pinging range up to 2000-2500 w/ these early warning sonars. i would rather do it w/ sensitivity than tweaking range, for various unclear personal reasons. just feels right :hmm:

visual sensitivity is 0.001 -- i'm spotted (clear day, no waves) at approx 4000m. periscope spotted instantly at close range. does anyone have irl examples of typical ranges a u-boat could be spotted at?

right now, working on visual, sonar, and hydrophones. if we get those right, will move on to radar.

the issue w/ multiple sensor types has come up already in the vis mods -- the game ai uses only 1 sensor at a time, i think. eg if a radar equipped ship is w/in visual range, you won't pick him up on your radar warning system. afaik, sensor systems don't comlpement each other. any comments/corrections from more informed people are, as usual, welcomed.

[CB..]

well im back to my original situation again---all the DD's are basically dumb unless you get so close to them that they can't avoid detecting you--

it really does seem to be a case of reduce the radar range and the whole kit and kaboodle dies along with it---if that's the case then it looks very poor indeed for any possible genuine soloution-
as you guys are saying even tho you are having the opposite problem from me generaly (ie too many uber DD's) - unlesss you provoke them the DD's don't detect you- and that is no matter what happens next useless gameplay wise--if you can be sure of avoiding detection by remaining at slow and silent running and the DD's only become dangerous once they HAVE detected you - then why should you want them to detect you? (because this is a game of course! and if they don't detect you then there is no game) so that's the real problem-- if you have to deliberately provoke the DD's into attacking you then things aren't working well

i have one set up that works reasonably well---with normal radar-- if i reduce the range of the radar- even tho it plays no part in the mission at all (ie i approach submeged - attack submerged and leave submerged) the AI is useless-

not good not good at all
ye gawds i thought SH2 DD AI was irritating but this is rediculous

i bl**dy tempted to just give the merchants hydrophones and be done with it - let them detect the sub and wake the DD's- that's if they can be bothered to tell the DD's they've detected a sub :nope:

[Kaleunt]

About range, one thing can be said: in SHIII the active sonar range
is greater than their real counterpart. Another point is that the sonars modeled in game are an extropalation of the real equipement. As far io have understood from 1939 to 42 the ASDIC was of "searchlight" type
with only a 16° angle of elevation and a range of 2500yards from the mid-42 to the end of the war the "searchlight" type was backed by a "Q" type the two systems working together the Q type had a max range of 1200
yards and an angle of elevation of 65°. Don't forget that the "Searchlight"
type and the Q type could be trained to 360° horizontaly. The 147 backed the preceding two systems later in the war it was specialy designed to track deep submarines and had a range of 1000 yards.
In game the "searchlight" type is made as a brtish system represented
by the 123 A ,128 A, 144 A ( A for active) and the Q type is exclusively an US equipement. ALL have the same generic capacities wich have nothing to do with the real sonars only the range of detection are modified to show an upgrade of the allied sonars as long as the conflict progress.
The type 147 in game has nothing to do with the real one.
It's really a shame to see this state of things in a sim.
But now i am right now testing my theory about the angle of elevation
having given to the active sonar an min elevation of
135° and max elevation of 180° in the first test the DD pinged my sub
but lost me at my vertical. The angular values need to adjusted to be more in line with the real life.

[Redwine]

well im back to my original situation again---all the DD's are basically dumb unless you get so close to them that they can't avoid detecting you--

unlesss you provoke them the DD's don't detect you- and that is no matter what happens next useless gameplay wise--if you can be sure of avoiding detection by remaining at slow and silent running and the DD's only become dangerous once they HAVE detected you -


I was having the same problem CB, i found a set of settings wich let you hardly survive the U-505 afetr they detect you...all five DDs.

But i need to provoque them to attack me.

I note is imposible for them to detect me if they are cruising above the Speedfactor speed value, make sure they are running under this value. If not increase value.

Noise factor, if the value is too high, i think so its own proppellers dont let them to haer you.

[caspofungin]

frig. disregard everything i've said about beam geometry in the test mission. it's more limited than the stock, but i'm not sure if reaches past 90 degrees on the escort's beam.

@kaleunt
mostly right. searchlight sonars (type 123,128) in my test setup have a beam from 90-116, i appreciate thats a difference of 26 deg but it's still more limited than stock, and from my reading the sonars were all mounted w/ a slight downward angle anyway. i've tried to approximate range/angles of the british sonars. don't have any info re us sonars, or either nations passive systems.

wrt the active sonar range being greater than irl -- well, i've never been able to get pinged at greater than 1400m. what are your current settings?

[CB..]

I was having the same problem CB, i found a set of settings wich let you hardly survive the U-505 afetr they detect you...all five DDs.

But i need to provoque them to attack me.

I note is imposible for them to detect me if they are cruising above the Speedfactor speed value, make sure they are running under this value. If not increase value.

Noise factor, if the value is too high, i think so its own proppellers dont let them to haer you.

for me all the available settings become fairly non effective once i lower the radar effectiveness--
i got frustrated and decided to really see just how useless the DD's could actually be---

so i set all the AI and various DD hydrophone ranges to 40,000 metres - yes that's 40,000 metres!!! LOL!

with the only limitation being i allso set the minimum ranges to 100 metres--- to create a definite blind spot immediately around and below the DD ( a cone or tube of dead water around the DD -- forcing them to re-aquire contact after each pass)

a limited contact time

[AI detection]
Lost contact time=5 ;[min]

and these sonar sim.cfg settings (stock sonar set up in the ai-sensors .dat)

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=2


i went looking for a convoy to attack but the first one evaded me at the last moment vanishing allmost from under my nose-- (it changed course and i didn't dive to keep tabs on it lol)

and the second convoy i went for escaped as i was obliterated by an aircraft just as it came in sight lol (arghhh!!! can see why you guys use set missions sometimes lol)

but then i got jumped by a hunter killer group on the third attempt after re starting the patrol ( at night)


these DD's had hydrophones with a maximum range of 40,000 metres remember-- i got a radar signals detected warning and dived - i was at flank- and immediately got the we have been detected message--(the DD's were probably around 8,000 metres away (remember i reduced the range of the radar)

and they came steaming over to investigate-- i was at silent running pretty quickly so it was only as they got near and starting pinging that they found me---( their hydrophones still only detected me when i went to ahead 1/13 or standard-- which you tend to do to avoid the DC drops-- so it forced me to take lots of risks)

after some pretty scary barrages all of which were very close indeed ( i lost two crew in the attack- and had to deal with some minor flooding and damage)

it was probably only the lost contact time entry in the sim.cfg that saved me--

and i don't mind that -

just shows how odd the whole set up is--

but i reccomend using the minimum range settings in the ai-sensors.dat to create the blind spot around the DD AND controling the length of the attack with the lost contact time--

if you can get it right you might be able to use their blind spot to shake them off---and giving them uber hydrophones doesn't seem to make them impossible to shake

come to think of it--if the u-boats had hydrophones that could detect merchants at well out side visual range- there's no reason to suspect that the DD's hydrophones were any weaker--it's just that the sound of a sub is no where near as easy to hear as a merchant-- so with the DD hydrophone it isn't a matter of 40,000 metres being un-realistic- more a case that at that range a sub would be impossible to hear anyway--
sooo having said all that ; there is the noise setting to balance that out--

actually there isn't really a maximum range to hydrophones-- if some one exploded a NUKE in the sea 120 nautical miles away you can bet your hydrophone guy would hear it- it's just a case of can you hear a sub at that range?
so the hydrophones as written are innaccurate- and a cop out-- give them un-limited range and it won't make the subs screws any louder- as i've shown above- so there's room for some thought there

i still say that uber hydrophones and crap sonar are going to give the best gameplay- control that with the lost contact time give the DD's a sizable blindspot and maybe just maybe the gameplay will come alive - if not i'm going to hacksaw my leg off and eat it :dead:

[Txema]

frig. disregard everything i've said about beam geometry in the test mission. it's more limited than the stock, but i'm not sure if reaches past 90 degrees on the escort's beam.


Could you please explain this further? I can not understand what you are referring to...


Txema

[caspofungin]

searchlight sonar is supposed to have a 360 degree sweep around an escort, limited only by the "baffles" -- the area of turbulent water/prop wash that sensors can't penetrate. effectively, an escort should be blind behind itself. the settings i'm playing with have the sonar beam reach 150 degrees either side of the escort. nevertheless, in game, it only uses sonar out to 90 degrees.

within a certain distance at a given depth, sonar can't pick you up -- because the width/height of the beam is limited, you can effectively dive under it. the deeper you are, the further away from the escort will be the dead zone. irl, searchlight sonar (types 123, 128) had a beam 16degrees top-to-bottom, which i'm trying to emulate. i'm not sure its working, though.

i think all the issues are down to how the dev's implemented the use of 2 sensors that should complement each other -- radar/visual and sonar/hydrophones. tweaking one always has an effect on the other.

[Txema]

searchlight sonar is supposed to have a 360 degree sweep around an escort, limited only by the "baffles" -- the area of turbulent water/prop wash that sensors can't penetrate. effectively, an escort should be blind behind itself. the settings i'm playing with have the sonar beam reach 150 degrees either side of the escort. nevertheless, in game, it only uses sonar out to 90 degrees.


http://www.uboat.net/allies/technical/asdic.htm

The search pattern

During screening operations the ASDIC operator searched through an arc of roughly 45 degrees each side of the base course of the vessel. The ASDIC had to be stopped at regular intervals on this arc long enough to allow the relatively slow underwater sound waves to return should they locate a submerged target. Normally the head would be stopped on a bearing and a sound pulse would be transmitted, which would be heard as a "ping" noise. If no echo was received after several seconds the head would be rotated a few degrees (usually 5) and the process repeated throughout the watch.

*************************************************

So it seems that searchlight sonar did not have a 360 degree sweep around an escort... It had only a limited sweep as implemented in SH3.


Txema

[caspofungin]

check the links on page 1 of this thread -- types 123, 128, and 144 sonars had a 360 degree sweep, documented from several sources. which isn't implemented. like so many other things :shifty:

[CB..]

:hmm: what might be interesting would be to set the minimum range for the hydrophones to the same distance as the maximum range for the sonar-- or similar

as most times when a DD is that close in combat situations he's dropping DC's-- and there doesn't really seem to be any dead time after a DC explosion (you frequently get the we've been detected message within seconds of a DC explosion if your still at flank trying to manevuer)

i'm going to carry on testing the 40,000 metre max hydrophone range
as it clearly DOESN'T mean you get detected at 40,000 metres whilst submerged -no matter what speed your going- what it does mean is that as you get closer you have to start moderating your speed untill at around 5,000 metres anything above 1/3rd will give you away--any closer than that and you need to be at dead slow and silent running to remain undetected--and at around 1000 metres your going to get detected if the DD is on the ball no matter what you do- un less your very deep anyway or use-ing the merchants to mask your screws etc etc-

i just got clobbered trying to sneak past the DD screen on a convoy -- but if i had positioned my self better i would have made it thru to the merchants undetected --and that's reasonable - i'll have to wait and see if they investigate the torping of any merchants next time i succeed in getting thru ( LOL)

anyhuw having a hard coded "cut off" range for the hydrophones doesn't make sense -- contacts must get quieter and quieter untill they get lost alto-gether-- rather than the thing just going dead, like switching off a light

anybody here remember playing destroyer command? using the hydrophones in that game for example-- you lose the contact when you can no longer distinguish it from the background noise-- remove the back ground noise and of course you can hear it again at a much greater range

doubling the range of your hydrophones doesn't make the background noise any less---and so on--do the same thing in your SH3 hydrophone room ( remove the ambient and internal engine noises and all of a sudden you can hear ships an insane distance away---the reason why you can't hear them with the back ground noise as is is not because the screw sounds aren't being reproduced- it's because you can't hear them over the ambient and internal engine noises the game plays at the same time--)

if we are going to get the best out of the DD's then we need to give them full range hydrophones and let the same limitations that affect the players hydrophones control the detection rate - rather than slapping a concrete range limitation on them ( it's unneccesary and a bit redicolous as the game deals with the issue in a dynamic way when left to the back ground sea noise to mask the screws at distance--it does this very well and we can control it precisely via the noise setting if there's any uber problems as a result)
the pin point DC drops come from the active sonar-- that's where you guys can use the stuff your looking into to make it more human

we can roughly state that we want to be DC'd as a normal part of the gameplay-- but the DD has to find you first- and that needs to happen naturally with out you provoking it- that's where the hydrophones come into it--and why i'm concentrating on them--
i'm still running completely stock sonar (other than some sim.cfg alterations mainly regarding the lose time) if i change anything for myself it will be increasing the minimum range to generate a blind spot

[caspofungin]

what ranges are you guys getting pinged at? the max i can get is about 1200-1400m despite various sensitivity and range tweaks/nerfs.

also, there seems to be some sort of dichotomy wrt sensors. even with broad ranges of elevation and bearing, i only ever get pinged w/ active sonar if i'm in front of the escort, and only get heard w/ hydrophones if i'm behind him. never the other way round. something hardcoded? or is it just my own ineptitude?

[caspofungin]

cb, that's a sweet idea -- extending hydrophone range outside of the active sonar sensor "sphere".

my only question is... well, better to describe something similar.

if you are approached by an escort that's equipped w/ radar, while he's far away and out of sight, you get a rwr message (radar signals detected) and a bearing line. as soon as he's in range, the line goes away, and "plotting" is done by vision. how do you determine which sensor has priority -- asdic or hydrophone? i'm not explaining myself clearly.

anyway, it's a great thought. will try it out tomorrow. good luck w/ your work. :)

[CB..]

what ranges are you guys getting pinged at? the max i can get is about 1200-1400m despite various sensitivity and range tweaks/nerfs.



about the same here-- tho occasionally i get pinged at much longer ranges - i'm not sure quite what's going on when that happens--

doesn't seem to matter what angle the DD's at tho for sonar or hydrophones but as they are often circling like sharks when it happens it's hard to tell :ping:

[CB..]

cb, that's a sweet idea -- extending hydrophone range outside of the active sonar sensor "sphere".

my only question is... well, better to describe something similar.

if you are approached by an escort that's equipped w/ radar, while he's far away and out of sight, you get a rwr message (radar signals detected) and a bearing line. as soon as he's in range, the line goes away, and "plotting" is done by vision. how do you determine which sensor has priority -- asdic or hydrophone? i'm not explaining myself clearly.

anyway, it's a great thought. will try it out tomorrow. good luck w/ your work. :)

cheers :up: i reckon it depends on what you do in response -- if you dive it will steam over to you last known position and start doing hydrophone scans as it closes and slows down - once it's got some sort of hydrophone reading on you it will position it self for an attack run and start pinging you with asdic-- perhaps the priority is based on the approximate range from target?
some thing that does confuse me tho is how reliable the "we've been detected" message is? often a DD will approach and start pinging then attack even tho there's not been any warning of detection- makes me think that the asdic is actually more effective than the hydrophones even at medium range? if so that would explain things perhaps--they seem to use the asdic as a sort of uber hydrophone sometimes

[Redwine]

:
we can roughly state that we want to be DC'd as a normal part of the gameplay-- but the DD has to find you first- and that needs to happen naturally with out you provoking it- that's where the hydrophones come into it--and why i'm concentrating on them--

Provoking is needed when they are cruising above the "Speed factor" value.

If they are cruising at 24 knots, and pasive sensor has a Speed factor of 15 or 20, they do not hear you.

If they do not hear you on pasive sensor, do not switch on active one.
Then they need a "trigger" as you called, as in example a radar or visual detection.

This speed factor is.... i think so.... the responsible for the random behavior in missions.

My question is ?

It is correct to rise up the Speed Factor too much ?
Wich was in real life the maximun speed at wich DDs can use the pasive sensor without being affected by background noise ?

If we adjust a determined value ..... waht happens with missions where the DDs was adjusted by mission builder at high speeds ?

Still testing here........

[CB..]

Provoking is needed when they are cruising above the "Speed factor" value.

If they are cruising at 24 knots, and pasive sensor has a Speed factor of 15 or 20, they do not hear you.

....

you need to test in missions where the DD's are not cruising at those speeds-- ie a normal convoy escort mission--

and you need to ask the question why a DD would be cruising at high speed? if it's a hunter killer it will be relying on it's radar for initial contact--if it's a fast taskforce escort then the taskforce is relying on it's speed to keep u-boats at bay--

this is why i test in a campaign patrol-- it's a pain in the neck some-times but i get to see the results in the "wild" as it were :yep:

//this is exaclty the same method i used for testing DES-5 for SH2-- :up:

if you increase the speed factor even slightly you end up with corvettes and armed patrol escorts with top speeds lower than the maximum sensor speed- and they become uber- if you lower it you will get better results most likely-- but in order to see them you'll have to test against convoy escorts :ping:

if you test in a mission where you start susbmerged and allready near the shipping- you don't give the DD's or you self a chance to go thru the normal detection routines

a fast moving hunter killer group for example--in normal gameplay you don't know it's there untill you get a "radar signals detected" message or similar (or happen to be lucky and submerged at the time)

so it starts running it's normal detection routines etc
if you know where it is before you start the test and start submerged
then it gives results that won't be reliable in normal gameplay

[glenno]

I have found in 1943 i have to dive between approx , roughly 150 mts and occasionally 230 mts to escape from DDs . (Rub 1.45) . Sometimes i have to stay at this depth silent with engines off for around 4 game hours or more for them to give up . I have always been able to escape . Hope this helps in some way .

[Txema]

This speed factor is.... i think so.... the responsible for the random behavior in missions.

My question is ?

It is correct to rise up the Speed Factor too much ?
Wich was in real life the maximun speed at wich DDs can use the pasive sensor without being affected by background noise ?

You can find the answer, at least for the active sonar, in the following page:

http://www.uboat.net/allies/technical/asdic.htm

The transmitter (sound) head extended beneath the ship, and was encased in a large metal done to minimize the noise of the water rushing past the ship while at moderate speed. This dome was filled with water, through which the sound passed, although this water was stationary and acted almost like a bumper. Noise level remained relatively low at moderate speeds, but anything above 18 knots resulted in too much noise and good contacts were difficult to find. The same results also resulted from bad weather when the ships were rolling, pitching and heaving.

It seems we can not increase the speed factor...

Txema

[Redwine]

if you increase the speed factor even slightly you end up with corvettes and armed patrol escorts with top speeds lower than the maximum sensor speed- and they become uber- if you lower it you will get better results most likely-- but in order to see them you'll have to test against convoy escorts :ping:

if you test in a mission where you start susbmerged and allready near the shipping- you don't give the DD's or you self a chance to go thru the normal detection routines

a fast moving hunter killer group for example--in normal gameplay you don't know it's there untill you get a "radar signals detected" message or similar (or happen to be lucky and submerged at the time)

so it starts running it's normal detection routines etc
if you know where it is before you start the test and start submerged
then it gives results that won't be reliable in normal gameplay

Understand, the matter is i put my aim into those Ubber DDs, the only mission i have with them is that U-505, i will attemp to edit it to start in surface.

But any way i will still attempting to discover if it is posible to trigger their attack with no visual or radar alert.

In the files i am testing now, i obtain good aproaching, plus i have now good Noise factor, when there is an alone DDs the threat alert become red often, but when there are 5, it change between different levels of green, and become red not often, i think so they are disturbing them selves by their own noise.

Attacks runs, become not too often, but when happens they are enought precise.

The only bad points in my file now are two things, is still hard for them to start normal attack routine without radar or visual alert, and, if i adjust the values to be hard but not imposible to evade the U-505 mission DDs, the early DDs become a little bit easy.

:up:


I have found in 1943 i have to dive between approx , roughly 150 mts and occasionally 230 mts to escape from DDs . (Rub 1.45) . Sometimes i have to stay at this depth silent with engines off for around 4 game hours or more for them to give up . I have always been able to escape . Hope this helps in some way .

I think so in real life :hmm: , may was so dificoult to stay 4 hours with engines stopped. They must to flood and blow tanks contantly to maintain depth. :up:



This speed factor is.... i think so.... the responsible for the random behavior in missions.

My question is ?

It is correct to rise up the Speed Factor too much ?
Wich was in real life the maximun speed at wich DDs can use the pasive sensor without being affected by background noise ?

You can find the answer, at least for the active sonar, in the following page:

http://www.uboat.net/allies/technical/asdic.htm

The transmitter (sound) head extended beneath the ship, and was encased in a large metal done to minimize the noise of the water rushing past the ship while at moderate speed. This dome was filled with water, through which the sound passed, although this water was stationary and acted almost like a bumper. Noise level remained relatively low at moderate speeds, but anything above 18 knots resulted in too much noise and good contacts were difficult to find. The same results also resulted from bad weather when the ships were rolling, pitching and heaving.

It seems we can not increase the speed factor...

Txema


Thanks :up: , it is true, but then a high speed group can pass over us without detect us. But looking you text it was a real life limitation.

[CB..]

The only bad points in my file now are two things, is still hard for them to start normal attack routine without radar or visual alert, and, if i adjust the values to be hard but not imposible to evade the U-505 mission DDs, the early DDs become a little bit easy.




that's the same issue i'm worried about allso--being able to attack a convoy with little response from the escorts is pretty dull!

[caspofungin]

@redwine

what noise factor are you using?

[Redwine]

@redwine

what noise factor are you using?

I am using 1.5 now, raising up to this value is when i note the DDs are disturbing by their own propeller noise when they are many in a small surface, plus i note launching 4 or 5 decoys together, it give me a little more chance to move away.

Sure, this effect may be due a combination with my other settings.

But aperently it make them a liittle deaf when they are alone, i am not sure, need more tests o many difrent missions.

:up: :up:

[caspofungin]

well, i'm stuck.

try as i might, i can't get escorts to pick me up at any significant range w/ their hydrophones, >1.4k w/ asdic, and i can't get them to use asdic abaft of 90 degrees.

noise factor -- lowering it allows the escorts to pick you up farther away, but then silent running has no benefits, as they can still hear you relatively far away. still haven't found a way for dc explosions to "deafen" escorts, either.

anyone making any progress?

[Txema]

still haven't found a way for dc explosions to "deafen" escorts

I think this is really the main realism problem of the simulation... If it were posible to find a way to make the ships loose contact while the DC are exploding, then the simulation would be really improved... Any clues????

I am not worried about the active sonar having a Maximun possible Bearing of 90 degrees.... it seems that irl they only sweeped the sonar around the frontal area... you have to take into account that an active sonar sweep took quite a lot of time.

Regarding the hydrophones, as it is well known they were much more effective in the submarines than in the ships. The effectiveness of the hydrophones increase dramatically if you operate them at an appropriate depth. Since the ships could only operate on the surface, the hydrophones were only a secondary detection system for them.

So, from my point of view, the main problem we have is that the DC explosions don´t make the ships loose contact with your submarine... Any ideas on how to solve this problem?

Txema

[Txema]

Sorry, double post.

[Redwine]

well, i'm stuck.

try as i might, i can't get escorts to pick me up at any significant range w/ their hydrophones, >1.4k w/ asdic, and i can't get them to use asdic abaft of 90 degrees.

noise factor -- lowering it allows the escorts to pick you up farther away, but then silent running has no benefits, as they can still hear you relatively far away. still haven't found a way for dc explosions to "deafen" escorts, either.

anyone making any progress?

Same problem here, if i adjust at a aceptable level a mission, they has a reduced active range. Any way it is not important, we dont need a real setting, we need a real behavior.

When i adjust good values to make mission playable, they never use the active beyond as much 1.5km, many times below this vlue as a 1 km, wich was real for most part of the war....... active sensor effective use was from 800m at early times up to as much 1500/1800m at later times of war.

May be DC has into their files a way to adjust their noside level, may be due a bubble level or some thing.

Gouldjg discoverd where are the Decoys codified, i ask him above but not response.

Why it is important ?

When i adjust the files to have a "hard but not imposible" U-505 mission, the early DDs become easy to evade.

If i adjust files so early DDs a little bit hard....... U-505 become a nightmare.

The addition of noisy decoys at later war time may be a help to balance it.

Gouldjg ! .... where are you man ! Plese help ! :rotfl:

The other way may be, to determine wich sensors are used at later war times and reduce only its capabilities .......

Here there is some problems, we have a specified setting for each sensor, but we need to know wich one is mounted on Ubber DDs.

Another problem is, we have a specified setting for each sensor....but we have a generic setting too.

Wich is the function of this generic settings as Hydrophones and Sonar ?

We have each specified type below, why are they there then ?



As commented above, rising up the noise factor up to 1.5 i am sure to launch 4 or 5 decoys at same time helps you to move away of 5 Ubber DDs in u-505 mission.

The problem is with this value they become a little bit deaf in other situations. :hmm:





I am not worried about the active sonar having a Maximun possible Bearing of 90 degrees.... it seems that irl they only sweeped the sonar around the frontal area... you have to take into account that an active sonar sweep took quite a lot of time.

Regarding the hydrophones, as it is well known they were much more effective in the submarines than in the ships. The effectiveness of the hydrophones increase dramatically if you operate them at an appropriate depth. Since the ships could only operate on the surface, the hydrophones were only a secondary detection system for them.

So, from my point of view, the main problem we have is that the DC explosions don´t make the ships loose contact with your submarine... Any ideas on how to solve this problem?

Txema

Dont worry about the 90* degree active beam....... :D

I have set now an active beam of only 4* , 2* left, 2* right.......
Plus i made a deaf zone into pasive sensor...... i set

Min Bearing =15

it is a 30* deaf zone at front of the bow.... :o

They catch me and kill me :damn: :damn:

Those extrange settings make them a little bit unprecise when they attack from the sides, but when attack from the back or front they still lethal :hmm:

With a only 4* active beam only !!! :huh: :88)


Plus i note as mentioned before.... i run a determined mission, like Barham, Happy Times, U-505, Royal Flush....... and it looks so good, i says "done", then i run the same mission another time, and it become so easy, and then run the same mission another time, with same file settings and it become extremelly lethal......... :damn:


I ask a new time .....

May be posible there is something in the game introducing a random factor ? :damn:

[HEMISENT]

I received a PM from Gouldjg a couple days ago.
He is out for a few days on a work related issue. Should be returning soon.

[CB..]

here's an additional point--

i just ran another campaign patrol
found a convoy in medium weather- slightly choppy seas--
and found that i was "undetectable" even at close range by the DD's
i sank some ships reloaded at ahead standard along side the convoy at around 3,000 metres from an escort (they were so sensitive in the previous patrol that this would have been deadly)
then sank some more--lol

i know the sea conditions do effect the DD's sensors but i had reduced this effect by half in the sim.cfg--

but here's the argument illustrated regarding the DD's dumbness

i added airsupport to some of the DD's a while ago--
and every time i torped a merchant a group of aircraft would instantly appear and bombard the place with DC's--where-as the DD's just acted like nothing was happenning and remain stubbornly in their normal escort locations--

i mean even tho i was submerged (at 25 metres each time) and the aircraft had no contact to attack they still "had a go" and attacked more or less randomly in the general area--so why didn't the DD's do the same thing---surely they should adopt a search pattern if nothing else---if the DD's had adopted some sort of search pattern it's pretty certain that sooner or later one would have randomly wandered close enough to pick me up (if i stayed close to the convoy to attack again)

once detected it's a different problem altogether--why do they need to detect you before commencing a search pattern?
when it's obvious your there after a ship gets torped?

the aircraft didn't need any prompting--

there's only so much you can do about this sort of stuff with-out having a better picture of how the AI is actually working

i noticed the generic AI sensor stuff too Red'-- wonder if theyre's any relevance to it?

the whole thing is incredibly complex given the weather date uber and dumb DD's it'sgoing to be next to impossible to come up with somthing that works well gameplay wise in a full campaign--mainly because the AI doesn't adapt to the sensor changes or weather conditions--we got a dynamic campaign out of the Dev's and fair do's for that :up: - what is needed these days is dynamic AI- AI that adapts it's tactics to differing conditions and sensor capabilites- it's not difficult-- after all if the AI adapts to it being dark by switching on the search-lights- it shouls be no more difficult for it to adopt wider search patterns after a ship gets torped and during rougher weather--it's no different

if a ship gets torped and the DD's can't find a contact it should adopt different search areas and continue searching untill it does!! (or X amount of time goes past since the last sinking)

we have the lostcontact time but that only applies to what the DD's does AFTER it has founf a contact-- not before?

on the DC noise factor after a drop perhaps giving the sonar/hydrophones a large minimum range (200 metres?) would create a blindspot after a drop at least for the DD that made the attack run--if not for the others
it allso would mean that it wouldn't be able to detect anything directly under neath itself--that's if it actually means anything :doh:

[CB..]

:o here's a question just to check
does the stock sim.cfg list the visual sensor as having a
speedfactor of 15 knts??

or is this something i've added and forgoten about i did check my back up file but it is the same--

this obviously doesn't make any sense and might explain why the DD's don't allways react when i think they should--( tho i suppose trying to use a pair of binoculars whilst barreling along at 20 knots in choppy seas would no doubt be quite difficult)
anyhuw i've cranked it up to 35 knots and i''ll see if that does owt :huh:

also when you trying to guage your hydrophone sensitivity remeber the wavefactor has a huge impact on the DD's hydrophones--
mine seems to be about right in calm seas - but fairly useless in rougher seas--of course if i set it up so it's ok in rough seas it's going to be uber in calm seas --

~~~i think there-fore the wavesfactor might have to be set to zero--

in order to enable you to adjust things about right- then introduce a wavesfactor a tiny amount at a time just so there's a slight reduction in the DD's effeciency in rough seas--

or if as Red suspects there is in fact a randomisation factor then were stuffed completely and throughly UNLESS we can reduce the randomisation;

perhaps if all the sim.cfg enrtys regarding waves and noise were set to zero removing them from the equation ?

[Col7777]

Hi CB,

If I'm looking at the right thing, then yes it is 15knots but 20 in the sonar section, hope this helps.

[CB..]

Hi CB,

If I'm looking at the right thing, then yes it is 15knots but 20 in the sonar section, hope this helps.

Cheers Col! :up:

pretty perculiar stuff--means in theory that a lone DD without radar travelling at over 15 knots is completely blind to surface contacts --dunno what to make of that at all-- :(

[caspofungin]

you're looking at "enemy speed factor" -- eg the faster your sub is moving, the easier it is to spot by the enemy. eg when attacking a convoy on the surface, your better off moving in slowly as you'll ge closer rather than the high-speed torpedo boat approach.

that's different from speed factor -- which is the limit above which sensors won't work.

enemy surface factor i gather is related to your aspect -- you'll be picked up easier on any sensor if you're at 90 degrees to the escort, but will have to be much closer to be picked up head on.

[caspofungin]

wrt to dc's -- maybe there's someway to give them the same "noise-making" attribute as the decoys -- except of much greater amplitude, and of shorter duration.

or course, w/out the sdk...

i have different effects when attacking convoys -- there's always some response from the escorts, even if they're pinging away on the far side on the convoy. i think the noise factor has to be reduced -- allowing you to be picked up on hydrophones further away -- i posted a chart early in this thread that implied you could be heard running at 6 kts about 3000m away. in game, i can't get that figure above about 2k.

also, detection time plays an important role. w/ a detection time of 0, you'll be picked up much further away w/ any sensor more consistently than w/ a longer detection time -- reduces variability. useful in tests, but in game, there should be some element of chance to simulate eg keeping a poor watch, sleepy lookouts, listening in the wrong direction, etc.

the problem is, we don't know the algorith used to specify detection, or the lack of it. if we did, it would be pretty easy to calculate things out and rapidly reach the effects we wanted.

"wadda we want? SDK! when do we want it? Now!" :rock:

[Redwine]

I received a PM from Gouldjg a couple days ago.
He is out for a few days on a work related issue. Should be returning soon.

Thanks alot Hemisent :up: , he can help us a lot attempting to balace diference between early and later DDs.


here's an additional point--

i just ran another campaign patrol
found a convoy in medium weather- slightly choppy seas--
and found that i was "undetectable" even at close range by the DD's
i sank some ships reloaded at ahead standard along side the convoy at around 3,000 metres from an escort (they were so sensitive in the previous patrol that this would have been deadly)
then sank some more--lol


Same happens here, some times they are so deadly and some times in the same mission and same files settings they are stupid..... i am conviced there is some random factor actuating at some place. :damn:

but here's the argument illustrated regarding the DD's dumbness

i added airsupport to some of the DD's a while ago--
and every time i torped a merchant a group of aircraft would instantly appear and bombard the place with DC's--where-as the DD's just acted like nothing was happenning and remain stubbornly in their normal escort locations--

i mean even tho i was submerged (at 25 metres each time) and the aircraft had no contact to attack they still "had a go" and attacked more or less randomly in the general area--so why didn't the DD's do the same thing---surely they should adopt a search pattern if nothing else---if the DD's had adopted some sort of search pattern it's pretty certain that sooner or later one would have randomly wandered close enough to pick me up (if i stayed close to the convoy to attack again)

This behavior you described not happens to me, when i run the U-505 mission, there are 5 ubber DDs, they do not detect me is i dont do any stupid thing, but when i torpedoe the carrier, they weak up and start a frenetic search for me and always catch me.

Carrier destroy works as a "trigger' for search patterns. :hmm:

This happens in another missions too, in happy times, they do nothing but when i torpedoe a ship they start up looking foe me, plus a pack of them appears as called by radio to asist them against me.



i noticed the generic AI sensor stuff too Red'-- wonder if theyre's any relevance to it?

I can uderstand why we have these generic settings if we have a speciefied ones :hmm:

[caspofungin]

i'm not sure the ai_sonar and ai_hydrophones settings do anything.

reason? check the .sens file for each escort -- 1 node is visual, determinged by ai_visual by linkname. there's no nodes linked to ai_sonar, ai_hydrophone, etc -- rather, they're all linked to individual sensor types.

also, chek out the late war escorts -- they've all switched to type 147 exclusively, when irl type147 was used in conjunction w/ other types. so if we restrict type147 to historical parameters, we're reducing their ability to search w/ a "searchlight" sonar.

it may be worth adding a sonar type to an unused node, if possible -- the c and d nodes are for radio-direction finding and radar warning, which none of the allied escorts have. (but how sweet would that be -- you send a contact report in proximity to a convoy, and an escort comes over to investigate...)

[CB..]

you're looking at "enemy speed factor" -- eg the faster your sub is moving, the easier it is to spot by the enemy. eg when attacking a convoy on the surface, your better off moving in slowly as you'll ge closer rather than the high-speed torpedo boat approach.

that's different from speed factor -- which is the limit above which sensors won't work.

enemy surface factor i gather is related to your aspect -- you'll be picked up easier on any sensor if you're at 90 degrees to the escort, but will have to be much closer to be picked up head on.

:oops: yup just realised that myself --I must be losing the plot-- :(



This behavior you described not happens to me, when i run the U-505 mission, there are 5 ubber DDs, they do not detect me is i dont do any stupid thing, but when i torpedoe the carrier, they weak up and start a frenetic search for me and always catch me.



that's what seems to be missing from the AI behavuoir in my game Red if the DD's would do that i'd be basically happy with things --even as stock--
but they never do--it's allmost as if some of the AI routines are missing--
was like that from day one-- stock game right thru the patch and every mod i've tried to construct to sort it out--no effect--they only investigate an area after they have detected the sub--no matter how many ships i sink
waste of time really :nope:

[Marhkimov]

This behavior you described not happens to me, when i run the U-505 mission, there are 5 ubber DDs, they do not detect me is i dont do any stupid thing, but when i torpedoe the carrier, they weak up and start a frenetic search for me and always catch me.

That's what seems to be missing from the AI behavuoir in my game Red if the DD's would do that i'd be basically happy with things --even as stock--
but they never do--it's allmost as if some of the AI routines are missing--
was like that from day one-- stock game right thru the patch and every mod i've tried to construct to sort it out--no effect--they only investigate an area after they have detected the sub--no matter how many ships i sink
waste of time really :nope:

I don't understand why it is not working for you, CB.

It works for me in the same way that Redwine described. In the u-505 mission, if I don't do anything stupid, the 5 DDs will not detect me. But if I sink the escort carrier, they all go crazy and enter into search patterns. They ALWAYS find me in the end. And they DO seem to co-operate with each other, either by radio or taking turns on DC attacks. One will start off by pinging me. Then the other four will start their approach, pinging me as well.

[Redwine]

This behavior you described not happens to me, when i run the U-505 mission, there are 5 ubber DDs, they do not detect me is i dont do any stupid thing, but when i torpedoe the carrier, they weak up and start a frenetic search for me and always catch me.

that's what seems to be missing from the AI behavuoir in my game Red if the DD's would do that i'd be basically happy with things --even as stock--
but they never do--it's allmost as if some of the AI routines are missing--
was like that from day one-- stock game right thru the patch and every mod i've tried to construct to sort it out--no effect--they only investigate an area after they have detected the sub--no matter how many ships i sink
waste of time really :nope:

I offers you my files before, just let my know wich files you want.

Now i have more than a dozen of Ai-Sensors/Sim.cfg :rotfl:

[CB..]

thanks for the thoughts guys!

Red !!! you should see how many bak up versions of different ai-sensor/sim.cfg sets i have got lol!!! lost count--every time i think i've got something going it vanishes on the next patrol--back to nothing again--

this is why i keep giving up on the game--it doesn't make sense that i can't solve it - but i can't--and the game is use-less as it is-- completely useless--

i've tried compensating for it by making the u-boat as fragile as a china cup--AND increasing the damage range and force of the DC's , adding airsupport to the DD's--doubling the number of DD's escorting all the convoys--and yup i've even tried adding hydrophones to the merchants LOL!!!-- as i say i've given the hydrophones unlimited range (well 40,000 metres anyway) nothing works-- i get the very occasional moment where it seems i've got it right - but it never lasts--

the DD's do co-operate if they by accident happen to detect me--but i can sink the entire convoy if i have the patience to do that and not one of the DD's will bother to investigate-- even if the convoy is taking evasive action!!

i don't think this is a sensor problem

or if it is it's a very perculiar one--

if i thought that re-installing would help i'd do that - but as i say it's been like this from day one --and re-installing doesn't make any difference--(i've allready tried it numerous times)

the AI just doesn't work (for me) :down:

EDIT/ UP_DATE;

well here you go--as a final act of desperation if nothing else lol
i set the maximum range for the AI sensors including sonar and visual to 40,000 metres (their hydrophones are allready at 40,000)

so here i am approaching a convoy in broad daylight flat calm weather conditions June 1943--

i get spotted (not surpirising with the range of the ai visual sensor)

a corvette chuggs over to take a look-- doesn't detect me (submerged at silent) so i continue in towards the merchants---i torp a tanker and leave the DD's do make a half hearted attempt to detect me (mainly because they spotted my scope) but they came no where near--
so i went deep and silent and left again---no danger what so-ever--

perhaps next time i'll get killed before i can say open torpedo tube doors but all you can conclude from that is

everything regarding DD detection rates dumbass DD behaviour and or uber DD behaviour is entirely completely and utterly RANDOM

i'd put it at about 80% dumb 20% uber at best with nothing much imbetween--

there is no game---SH3 is a very attractive hugely interactive screen saver..nothing more :nope: :damn:

and no one could be more annoyed about that than me :(

[caspofungin]

maybe we should concentrate on an open source game eg danger from the deep. make up our own ai routines, etc.

[Marhkimov]

maybe we should concentrate on an open source game eg danger from the deep. make up our own ai routines, etc.

hahahaha, that's the easy way out. ;)

[CB..]

un less we can find and override the randomisation and FORCE the AI to obey the rules laid down in the AI_sensors.dat and sim.cfg if we can do that then it'll be great --what do you reckon-?

[Marhkimov]

un less we can find and override the randomisation and FORCE the AI to obey the rules laid down in the AI_sensors.dat and sim.cfg if we can do that then it'll be great --what do you reckon-?

Those files are less like AI rules and more like AI sensor abilities. Maybe we are fixing the wrong thing. No no, scratch that... We are DEFINATELY fixing the wrong thing.

Everybody knows that we need to change the AI sub-routines. Then the real problem comes up... HOW?

[CB..]

Those files are less like AI rules and more like AI sensor abilities. Maybe we are fixing the wrong thing. No no, scratch that... We are DEFINATELY fixing the wrong thing.

Everybody knows that we need to change the AI sub-routines. Then the real problem comes up... HOW?
well you know what i'm getting at--- ;) but your right we're fixing the wrong thing--something else is taking priority over those sensor settings and adding a randomised factor that is not listed in the sim.cfg---

either it's a direct AI routine or it's an additional sensor factor--summat along those lines--

or perhaps something is overiding the crewquality setting in the campaign.rnd
and randomising it- having DD crews with zero crew experience would give the same problem --it wouldn't matter what sensors you gave them they'd still be useless and vice versa-- some where to start perhaps--?

or perhaps it's an problem with the cfg date for the DD's -- now that really has never made sense--and caused problems before--DD's not spawning etc--

one minor point about the sensors---the american DD's have these additional sensors the brits don't have them what are they?

[Sensor 9]
NodeName=R01
LinkName=TypeSC
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19420601

[Sensor 10]
NodeName=R01
LinkName=TypeSG
StartDate=19420601
EndDate=19440101

[Sensor 11]
NodeName=R01
LinkName=TypeSS
StartDate=19440101
EndDate=19451231


as the american DD's have a higher tendenciy to go uber than the brits it's at least a clue--

[Redwine]

everything regarding DD detection rates dumbass DD behaviour and or uber DD behaviour is entirely completely and utterly RANDOM



something else is taking priority over those sensor settings and adding a randomised factor that is not listed in the sim.cfg---


As i wrote before, i am convinced of that...... :damn: :damn:

Same mission, same files settings, some times it is stupid to evade them, some times it is near to imposible, alternatively.

I had adjusted

Min Bearing =15

It is 30* deaf zone at bow.

Active beam as only 4* wide.

Min Range 500 in both pasive and active.

They launch me Laser Guided Depth Charges and Helgedogs :damn:

There is a sailor with his head in the water :damn:

I can believe the dev team made some thing like this and can understand why for ! :damn:


Then..... what can we do ?

It is posible to reduce the later time equpipement, reducing its capability or putting on ubber DDs early equipment.....?

[CB..]

As i wrote before, i am convinced of that...... :damn: :damn:

Same mission, same files settings, some times it is stupid to evade them, some times it is near to imposible, alternatively.

I can believe the dev team made some thing like this and can understand why for ! :damn:

Yup i know :yep: but it needed proving---so we could move onto the real problem if possible :up:

perhaps the Dev team were being post ironic---they knew we'd all buy it anyway--so they decided to have a bit of a laugh at us--i really did get the feeling they were taking the p*ss somtimes on the official forum---i got the impression they thought we were all rather sad--
:down:


what i'm going to do is make up a SNS file for the DD's based on the american DD's SNS files and use this file for all the DD's in the hope that while i'm doing this i might learn something--

[Col7777]

Forgive my ignorance here, I'm just trying to help, is the Contacts file any way related to the sensor and sim files?

[CB..]

AFAIK Col it just relates to the contacts as displayed on the map how far out to show a radio contact report what spped is dispayed as slow medium fast and how many ships would be shown as small medium or large convoy etc but as we know from SH2 days you can never be entirely sure about anything!!


EDIT///

here's little bit of information that might be new (probably not but it may be usefull)

found in the SH3Sim.act (main folder)

opened up in a hex editor and did a search for sonar--

it mentions the sensitivity entry in the sim.cfg saying that if the sensitivity is set to zero in (i assume?) the AI_sensors.dat file then it takes the reading from the sim.cfg -- which if is true then altering the sensitivity in the sim.cfg won't have any effect unless the AI_sensors.dat sensitivity is zero --- if setting it to zero forces the game to read the sim.cfg for this setting then maybe it will become immune from any randomisation?

really need time travellor for that one as i'm not sure how to set the sensitivity to zero in the AI_sensors.dat file (there being a rather long hex entry there in the anaylser)

but it might be a way round this---the same applys to the hydrophones and other sensors allso they all ahve sensitivity settings in the sim.cfg---

if this statement in the SH3Sim.act file is correct then these sensitivity entrys in the sim.cfg are at present ignored---and may be being caught in what ever randomisation is taking place--- if by setting them all to zero in the sensors.dat- we force the game to use the settings in the sim.cfg they may not get randomised--bit desperate but WTF


my moneys on the crewrating being randomised from the campaign.RND

as novice crew are useless no matter what sensors they have--
if the game ignores the elite crewrating and sets them randomly then there's a one in four chance of the DD's being novice and useless and this would help explain things--???

if we can find the crewrating options in the code and delete the 0 1 2 and 3 rating so there is only elite to choose from: then if the game is randomising the crewrating you will allways get elite crews---just a thought
any one got any ideas?


(giving all the DD's the american sensors had no effect at all---by the way)

[CB..]

:hmm: can you say PING!!! :ping:
i edited out the crewrating entry from the 505 mission and it loaded and ran perfectly normally-- i didn't play the mission thru as i was just testing the idea that the game DOES NOT read the crew rating entry OR that it DOES NOT take any notice of it

and the game DOES NOT use the crew rating entry written into the mission file--so how does it decide what type of crew to give the DD's?

it's just a shot in the dark but it's likely that it randomises it or has some other system for allocating crewrating--- one thing for sure is that (in single missions at least--i havent tried editing out the crew rating from the campaign but i will do that next)

the game does not need the crewrating entry in the mission file to load and run the missions

PING.....
as we know novice crews are useless and elite ones are fairly uber -
this would be important

the game does not use/need the mission file crewrating entry --if it ignores it which is what this implys then what is the default crewrating?
and is it randomised? would explain a lot :ping:

if you want to test this open the mission file with wordpad and edit the

crewrating=4

entry to this

;crewrating=4


adding the ; to comment it out (the game ignores anything preceeded by a ; AFAIK)

if we are really lucky then simply removing all the crewrating entrys from the campaign.RND will actually solve the whole issue - i'm too tired to test this right now but will have a look tommorrow--good night all!!

:ping:

[caspofungin]

re your question about americansensors--

the r node is for radar. in brit ships, type 276, 277 etc. in yank escorts, SC, SG, others.

H node for hydrophones
N node for active sonar/asdic
R node for radar
C/D nodes for radio direction-finding and radar warning (not implemented)
also another node for ai_visual

i hope you're right re sensitivity in ai_sensors -- i've just about had it w/ this issue. and going back to playing a reg campaign is out because now i know things are f'ed up.

[Marhkimov]

At least it seems like you guys are onto something. Once you figure out how the AI works, I'm sure that a workable mod won't be very far off. :yep:

[Col7777]

Well you asked for a few thoughts CB, again forgive my ignorance, but does the crew rating only relate to the player and not the AI, also something you said earlier made me think of SH2, where some things are not read, perhaps something they never got round to.

Also have you noticed when the player sub either submerged or surfaced how the aircraft pick you up, when submerged I have seen a good few fly overhead then turn and fly off again, as though something has told them you are there somewhere?

I wonder if instead of increasing the numbers what about adding a ( - ) minus sign instead, we've seen lots of weird things happen by doing the opposite sometimes.

If I'm off track then ignore all this I'm just throwing some thoughts around.

Edited to add:
I just read this on the other SH3 section, do you also think that after you sink a ship the sound of it breaking up MIGHT effect the DD's picking you up, that might explain some of it but not when you haven't sank anything.
Have you noticed any difference when there is no convoy around, do the DD's pick you up then, I'm thinking it might be the convoy ships masking you somehow?

[Redwine]

What about the folder "Patterns", inside has 3 diferent patterns .mis, are they for campaign or may be adds some random patterns into single missions ?

I renamed them, so all 3 are pattern 1, and random behavior still present, i think so.... :dead:

[Redwine]

What about the folder "Patterns", inside has 3 diferent patterns .mis, are they for campaign or may be adds some random patterns into single missions ?

I renamed them, so all 3 are pattern 1, and random behavior still present, i think so.... :dead:

@ CB :

Looking into the file you mentioned, looking that explanation, but dont found which values to touch.

Inside there are sentences for Bolds too, with life time, surface of the bubbles, noise of the bubbles....... interesting.



re your question about americansensors--

the r node is for radar. in brit ships, type 276, 277 etc. in yank escorts, SC, SG, others.

H node for hydrophones
N node for active sonar/asdic
R node for radar
C/D nodes for radio direction-finding and radar warning (not implemented)
also another node for ai_visual

i hope you're right re sensitivity in ai_sensors -- i've just about had it w/ this issue. and going back to playing a reg campaign is out because now i know things are f'ed up.


Yanki types use those with typewrites ? SC, SG etc ?

May be we need to droop down only those sensors ?

[CB..]

i had a feeling you guys would under-estimate the significance of the crew rating--think about it :yep:
i know it isn't minimum this or maximum that or technically sourced from some magnificent historical manual somewhere !!

but if a novice crew is useless

an elite crew is uber

and the game doesn't get this info from the mission file--

etc
or are you trying to tell me that there is no difference between a novice crew and an elite one all of a sudden?

what's the trouble were looking at here again?
sometimes useless and sometimes uber DD's

now i haven't tested this as yet but my moneys on that horse right there :hmm:

i'm going to return all my sensor dat settings to stock and edit out the crewrating from the campaign.rnd file - and then run a couple of patrols--
if there is no change/improvement- then it'll need further work--if it turns out that the crewrating entry is completely redudndant and literally doesn't do anything then we will have learn't something new and can eliminate that from the equation--

but if it does do something and the game is randomising the crewrating on the DD's (et al) then that will explain most of what is going on

[Der Teddy Bar]

The missions in the pattern folder are those that the games uses when you use the navigational officers search patterns.

[Der Teddy Bar]

regarding the game not using the crewrating, most likely not so. I would presume that it nothing is found then a default value would be used.

As per this line from one the .act files... If 0, then the value from sim.cfg file is taken.

This is a real sample of what might occur, I am saying that the sim.cfg file is not used in this area. The sim.cfg is for the u-boats AI, AFAIK.

[Redwine]

The missions in the pattern folder are those that the games uses when you use the navigational officers search patterns.

Thanks Teddy :up: :up: , i note the changes on them has no effect to solve the problem here on this topic...... :hmm: :hmm:

[CB..]

regarding the game not using the crewrating, most likely not so. I would presume that it nothing is found then a default value would be used.

As per this line from one the .act files... If 0, then the value from sim.cfg file is taken.

This is a real sample of what might occur, I am saying that the sim.cfg file is not used in this area. The sim.cfg is for the u-boats AI, AFAIK.

EXACTLY!!!!!


that is why i am suggesting editing out the crewrating entry from the campiagn.rnd --- if this forces the game to use a default value- and we are really lucky --then that default value will be 3 or 4 veteran or elite--(if were unlucky it'll be 0 or 1 or 2 :roll: )
but either way if it does default to a set level the dang thing will at least be consistant and any further adjustments to the sensors.dat will be consistantly applied right across the board--meaning any further adjustments will work in every situation ---if it is randomised then an expert such as Time travellor may be able to kill/edit the randomisation --

the missions load normally with no crashes with the crewrating entry commented out---so this actually has the potentail to be the soloution to the problem--- :yep:

on the sensitivity issue-- we need to know how to set the sensitivity to zero in the AI_sensors.dat in order to force the use of the sim.cfg entrys---(if that information is correct and current) as the number is actually a long hex number when viewed in TT's analayser and i don't know the correct way to describe zero in hex we need him or some one else to describe the correct way to edit the entry

unless it quite literally is simply 0
as described in the afore mentioned act file

UP_DATE

well i've just run a campaign patrol (all crewrating entrys commented out in the campaign.rnd file)

stock AI_sensors.dat

day light -medium fog - choppy seas -1943

i approached a convoy from the rear and stumbled across a rear gaurd DD

i can be pretty sure that if the crewrating defaults to a set level when there is no crewrating included in the mission/campaign files then it defaults to reasonable level (probably veteran)
the DD behaved in an intelligent manner performing well - conducting search patterns and DC drops with a reasonable level of accuracy without ever seeming uber-- i took minor damage but was able to escape after around 20 minutes the DD returning to the convoy---

and i haven't seen this sort of intelligent behaviour from the DD's --good but not uber---as we have noticed they are usually useless or nightmarishly uber--

dunno what will happen next patrol of course
:rotfl:

but the DD used a definite gameplan in the attack (rather than just relying entirely on it's sensors- meaning that the AI was "thinking" not just reacting)

as this sort of behaviour is not dependant on the quality of it's sensors but on the quality of it's AI -IMO i believe this is the answer (to the randomisation anyhuw)

once the randomisation is stopped then any fine tuning of the sensors can be undertaken and tested and refined knowing that it will "stick" in game

it's simple to test--

just open the single mission file or campaign.rnd file with wordpad

use the edit/replace function to replace

CrewRating

with

;CrewRating

and the game will not read the crewrating from the mission file and will use the default "hard coded" level of crew experience for the DD's (and all the other vessels in the mission)

if it's consistent in it's choice of default crew experience then you will able to conduct all future sensor edits and get reliable consistent results--

i dunno about you guys but this one "feels" right
it fills in all the spaces-- I could be wrong of course (frequently am) but this is IMO the right "ball park" :up: try it see if it helps

[CB..]

re your question about americansensors--

the r node is for radar. in brit ships, type 276, 277 etc. in yank escorts, SC, SG, others.

H node for hydrophones
N node for active sonar/asdic
R node for radar
C/D nodes for radio direction-finding and radar warning (not implemented)
also another node for ai_visual

i hope you're right re sensitivity in ai_sensors -- i've just about had it w/ this issue. and going back to playing a reg campaign is out because now i know things are f'ed up.

:up: cheers caspofungin
the SG sensors are radar--nice one!

try the crewrating edit for me if fancy it-- see if the normal campaign gameplay changes at all--i know what you mean it's another reason why i test in a campaign rather than single missions--at least i can enjoy the patrol as i'm doing the test

[CB..]

The missions in the pattern folder are those that the games uses when you use the navigational officers search patterns.

it's a dang shame they didn't do the same thing for the DD search patterns--would have been interesting trying to make new ones

[Der Teddy Bar]

on the sensitivity issue-- we need to know how to set the sensitivity to zero in the AI_sensors.dat in order to force the use of the sim.cfg entrysThe sim.cfg is for the U-BOAT's AI, not the escorts.

The missions in the pattern folder are those that the games uses when you use the navigational officers search patterns.

it's a dang shame they didn't do the same thing for the DD search patterns--would have been interesting trying to make new onesNow your catching up :rotfl: I had been on that very mission at the time, no pun intended.

[CB..]

The sim.cfg is for the U-BOAT's AI, not the escorts

don't be daft :rotfl:

on the issue in hand---even tho i am now purely talking to myself lol

the crewrating was the problem-- comment out your crew ratings entrys and the AI starts to behave in a consistent fashion mission by mission---

[caspofungin]

the crewrating was the problem-- comment out your crew ratings entrys and the AI starts to behave in a consistent fashion mission by mission---

so what do they do now that they didn't before? react appropriately to convoy attacks etc? 'cause that would be a start...

have you tried changing sensitivity in ai_sensors yet? i'd do it myself, but my hexediting skills are weak.

[CB..]

so what do they do now that they didn't before? react appropriately to convoy attacks etc? 'cause that would be a start...

have you tried changing sensitivity in ai_sensors yet? i'd do it myself, but my hexediting skills are weak.

the best way to describe them would that in each mission/patrol they have behaved in a moderately effective fashion- yes they have found me and attacked when i've torped ships and generally put up something approaching a palpable threat --

but in a way that's not the important thing here-- thinking back thru the thread--

folks including me couldn't guage the effectiveness of their sensor edits because the DD's wouldn't behave in a consistent fashion mission after mission after mission --making the whole thing impossibly frustrating and not really worth the effort-

now they do seem to behave consitently in every campaign patrol and single mission i've played--nothing fancy just consitent--

so now i can start to customise their sensors to suit my own personal gameplay needs with some hope that these changes will be visible every time i play--

on the sensitivity thing unless the AI_sensors.dat sensitivity entry is set to zero the sim.cfg sensitivity entry is ignored---i'm the same as you i don't know how to corretcly set teh AI_sensors.dat sensitivity entry to zero to try this out (it's shown as a long hex number in TT's analsyer)

anyhuw i'm sure there's a debat awaiting surrounding wether or not the sim.cfg actually effects the DD's and not the players AI u-boat crew but that's just a distraction really---

you can edit the other sensor factors in the DAT file same as before and perhaps try again?

personally i'm still going to increase the hydrophone range a little just to make the DD's a bit more dangerous ( as i say they best described as "moderately dangerous" after the crewrating "tweak") :up:

i'm banking on my old theory of uber hydrophones crap sonar and short lose contact time for the most fun :sunny:

[HEMISENT]

CB. I've been following closely all the work being done here and I admit I don't know enough to contribute anything but I'm a bit confused about your crew rating edit. sorry if this is a stupid question but:
I went to the Campaigns/Campaign folder, opened up the Campaign_RND file looking for "CrewRating". For every random group there is a "CrewRating=" entry. from 1 to 1700. I know you didn't edit 1700+ entrys so which one am I looking for. Similiar question in U 505 mission. Do I edit every CrewRating= entry for every unit or is there a main CrewRating entry that I'm not finding. What am I missing here.

Thanks again for all the hard work digging this out.

[CB..]

cheers :up: you need to edit them all really ( or it's easier for the purposes of testing it out)

ideally you just need to edit the escorts but that would take for-ever by hand-- do just use the edit/replace function in wordpad to replace ALL instances of

CrewRating

with

;CrewRating


note the ;

if after all your not at all happy with it or have any problems just reverse the process and your back to normal again

let me know how you get on with it one way or another--

[CB..]

the crewrating was the problem-- comment out your crew ratings entrys and the AI starts to behave in a consistent fashion mission by mission---

so what do they do now that they didn't before? react appropriately to convoy attacks etc? 'cause that would be a start...

have you tried changing sensitivity in ai_sensors yet? i'd do it myself, but my hexediting skills are weak.

here's a thought on that---the radar and visual sensor have a sensitivity entry in the sensors.dat--and judging from the corresponding entry in the sim.cfg it's higher than the sonar and hydrophones (makes sense)

perhaps as an experiment you could copy the hex number for the radar as shown in the analyzer into the same box for the hydrophones---think i'll give it a ago for the sake of interest

up date i've just done this!! i'll let you know how i go on---


on a side not i was poking around some of the files with a hex editor and came across a level_bomber entry for the bombers--- anything that stops the sunderlands etc from impersonating Stukas has to be worth trying so i added the entry to the aircraft cfgs like this

[Unit]
ClassName=LBSSunderlandMKIII
UnitType=304
MaxSpeed=217.0
MinSpeed=60.0
MaxRadius=2300
Length=26
Width=34.4
RenownAwarded=70
Level_bomber=1

and they behave a little more like bombers -- not pulling that vertical and quite impossible climb they usually do after a run

now they climb more sensibly away after an attack--new to me this might be old hat to others tho

[HEMISENT]

CB
Thanks for the editing tip. When I saw those 1700 entrys I kind of thought there has to be a better way. The replace/edit function worked like a champ.
I learn something new every day here.

I'm trying the U 505 mission. I used it to do a lot of back and forth testing when Gouldjg was first putting together his Hollywood mod and the DDs never acted the same way twice.

[gouldjg]

Hi all

Sorry for not being very active over this last week.

I had a serious problem at work (fatality) you guess the rest knowing that I am the safety manager and the HSE is all over the company (quite rightly so IMHO).

Anyway I am still very busy dealing with officials and writing reports up at the moment but hope to be back in relax mode sometime this week.


@Redwine

What is anum_bold or bold_launcher?. This is what I found in the sensors.sim near the bottom and I presumed it may be decoys but think I am very wrong.

In fact what is a ubold?

Sorry I can not confirm if this is decoy or not. :cry:


CB

I quickly read your progress and think your on the right track. I also saw the part in the SH3sim.act file where it says if 0 refer to sim.cfg. :up:

I agree that before any real progess can be made, we should set all ships on as much a level config as possible. Only then can the real tweaking begin.

It is just a matter of knowing what they defaulted to.

I have just done the 505 mission in the way you said about crew rating nerfed out and then applied a 200 min nerf on all the passive and active sensors.

As well as this, I added an xtra 300 mtrs on all maximun ranges for both passive and active sensors.

I tried the lose time = (shorter) but they became too dumb for my liking when observing.

I did notice that they no longer pin point unless I make it absolutely obvious where I am or stay on the same track whilst being hunted at 180 degrees.

I set sensitivity in the sim.cfg to 0.028 for each.

This is my setting to date and I can still be killed yet still too early to claim any success

[AI detection]
Lost contact time=60

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=1
Sensitivity=0.028
Height factor=0
Waves factor=0.5
Speed factor=20
Noise factor=1.0

[Sonar]
Detection time=10
Sensitivity=0.028
Waves factor=0.5
Speed factor=20
Enemy surface factor=200
Lose time=60



With these settings and the changes to the sensors.dat, I am finding that the DD does infact no longer get very pin-point drops,

oops
forgot to mention that I also changed the deph presision of the DC to 30 in hope that DD has to compensate and drop at different angles/times. Maybe this is why I am getting some good results ?????????

Obviously no way near completed as I need to start checking to ensure the DD have not become dumb in early years.

Am I correct that you are presuming that there is a random effect with crew levels. I ask this cos when snooping in main game files, I notice a lot of references to random .

Now the key is to get the clever DD that attacks for hours but still a chance to escape without decoy use. p.s. I also noticed decoy did throw off DD a little better than normal.

I am considering totally re-writing all damage values for the following reasons.

A ramming should kill the sub but to get this, I have to lower the hp of sub.

With lowered HP, all weapons have to be set to compensate i.e. lowered. Also need to set the crushing rate to a much lower number so sub still crushes slower than normal. When using hex I came accross the meaning of crush speed and the formula is ammount of damage per second. I am confident this can be altered.

I have to go to bed now but one last thing,

I managed to find the line to get the oil slick added in game. The only problem is that it only looks good if the ship is next to motionless and that you attach it to something under the water level.

try it:- Just pop this line as an effect on your conning tower in the zones.cfg.

Effect1=#Oil_Floating_Spot, 5

Start 505 mission and surface,

You will notice the oil patch will appear above the crew and move with the sub (not very cool).

Now add it to the keel of some ships or anything that usually only goes when underwater.

I am trying to add it to something so it leaves a trail on surface but this is proving difficult.

Anyway great work CB,

Had to edit mistakes so read again lol

[CCIP]

on a side not i was poking around some of the files with a hex editor and came across a level_bomber entry for the bombers--- anything that stops the sunderlands etc from impersonating Stukas has to be worth trying so i added the entry to the aircraft cfgs like this

Just so you know, this is NOT a good idea.

There is a reason AirPower mod replaced Liberators changed to a dive bomber instead of level_bomber -

to put it simply, the level bomber AI is broken and useless :down:

[Der Teddy Bar]

CB..
I presume that for testing purposes that it would be easier to change the sensors.cfg entires below from true to false...
Hydrophone uses crew efficiency=true
Sonar uses crew efficiency=true
Radar Warning uses crew efficiency=true

Far easier than stripping out the campaign files CrewRating entries.

[CB..]

Sorry to hear about the accident Gouldig-- hope everything works out as well as it can--


thanks for the encouragement on the crewrating tweak---
i'll try your sim.cfg entrys as well--

hey would a smoke trail work as an oil slick on the sub it would look good in the external view even if no where else?

here's something strange i edited the AI_sensor,dat to use the same senisitivity for the hydrophones as the radar ( more sensitive? i'm assuming) and it really only had one noticible effect in game---i got the time excell changes when a ship was near by and when a convoy was coming into range much much earlier---the DD's were unn affected by the changes only the time excell stuff---now that's just plain perculiar---not sure what to make of the whole issue i must admit -- things work ok with the crewrating tweak/nerf and the stock AI_sensors.dat-- butediting the dat gives results that are counter-intuitive---it is allmost as if the whole thing is reversed--i'm puzzled--there's something elaborate going on

anyhuw cheers again guys for the feedback hope we can pull some sort of rabbit out of the hat :up:

[CB..]

CB..
I presume that for testing purposes that it would be easier to change the sensors.cfg entires below from true to false...
Hydrophone uses crew efficiency=true
Sonar uses crew efficiency=true
Radar Warning uses crew efficiency=true

Far easier than stripping out the campaign files CrewRating entries.

not really no---what's your point? have you read the thread? DD effectiveness is the subject not the u-boat-- have you even noticed that the DD' s ability to detect you is as it is entirely random- rendering the entire game nothing more than an elaborate screen saver?
or are you too busy checking the number of rivets on the torpedos

[caspofungin]

easy fellas, easy...

@cb
i've played around w/ extensive changes to the ai_sensors files using the mini-tweaker, and haven't managed to get the results i'd like -- specifically, long-range detection w/ hydrophones (check the 1st page, escorts could hear a sub at 6kts at about 3000m -- the numbers are for us subs, and don't specifiy the listening conditions, but in the abscence of hard data its all we have to go on at the moment.) and more distant pinging eg 1800-2000m.

i've tried all ranges of sensitivity, from 0 to 1, in increments, and didn't really notice that much difference. dropping noise factor allows the escorts to hear you from far away, but then they can hear you at silent running from pretty far away, too. i can live w/ that -- my point is that i didn't really see much effect w/ changing sensitivity in sim.cfg. just want to save you some effort.

could you re-explain the bit about an .act file refering to sensitivity etc? where do we need to change sensitivity to 0 to get the program to use the sim.cfg values? like i've said, i can't hexedit worth ****e, but if someone could supply me w/ a suitably editied file, i'll gladly test and tweak further.

[Jungman]

You have to change the sensitivity for each Hydrophone setting inth enemy AI_Sensors.dat. Since there is a value there, it overrides the Sim.cfg.

It is set about .03 IIRC, changes here are interesting. I know someone did along time ago.

You should be able to make the enmey active sonar and passive sonar pick you up from far away. I think you want the Hydrophones to pick you up far away then have it come and investigate.

The DD are rather stupid in this regard. I have to pratically surface to get their attention.

Just to get the DD to be a challenge (they have no decent search pattern) You can make the hydorphone more sensitive, but even more take away the distance penalty, and make the detection time longer.

What this wil do, the DD will know you are there with the higher sensitiviy setting inside the AI_Sensor.dat file if you move at all. So sitting quite at zero speed will allow you to surprise a convoy.

If you move at all, they pick you up, but with aslonger detect time, the chance to get a sold detection takes a few minutes,. Enough time to surface and do your dirty work, but not so long to dive to a safe depth, as they come after you.

If they get within Active sonar range, the can DG you. Another mod lets you get under the active sonar if you are fast enough, maybe that can be changed also for the Hydrophone.

The upshot is to get the DD a chance to search for you after a time. As it is, they are too easy to avoid and get away from.

[caspofungin]

that's exactly what i've been trying to do! any way you can tell me how to change the sensitivities in ai_sensors.dat? or, barring a quick tutorial in hexediting, show me where i can get a file w/ sensitivity set to 0?

[Jungman]

The setting is there, it is called Sens followed by the usual XXXX format. Right now I am busy with another game...;) but if you se this to zero, for which, the Hydrophones or the active sonar, or both?

ther is a unique value for Sens for each Active sonar of seven, and the pasive hydrophones of seven types.

Making it zero would make then un able to detect you?

I thought you wish them to be as above post?

Anyway, open AI_Sensors.dat, look for say "Type144P" following past that is "Sensitivity" after that a "ways beyond XX_XX_XX" is the real setting, it is not following immediately as normal (thus that tool will not work). that is where it lies.

I never really did anything with it (expect copy down the numbers), I know someone did and it does change the detection rate, better or worst.

[caspofungin]

i was under the impression that setting sensitivity to 0 in ai_sensors would force the game to use the values in sim.cfg -- something along those lines earlier in the thread.

what program would you recommend using to change it?

[CB..]

if you open the ai_sensors.dat with TT's analyzer and look for the hydrohones sensitivity you find the hex number--

sensitivity = 00000000000400000064000000420000001611FA


problem how do you set that to

sensitivity = 0 ?

is it

sensitivity = 0

or 000000000000000000000etc

i i did try changing the hex number to the same number shown for the radar (figured that would be a higher sensitity than hydrophones)
but the results were just bizaare--

i'm fairly stumped on this one might have to go for the ad hock method of just increasing the number of escorts until it's so difficult to get past then to reach the convoy that you don't mind if they don't react too much when you start sinking ships etc--bit of a mess tho

[Redwine]

@Redwine

What is anum_bold or bold_launcher?. This is what I found in the sensors.sim near the bottom and I presumed it may be decoys but think I am very wrong.

In fact what is a ubold?

Sorry I can not confirm if this is decoy or not. :cry:

I am so sorry, i feel bad, i was claiming for you, and you with that big problem :oops: sorry.

About your data, it is corect, those are the decoys and decoy launcher.
They was described into SH3Sim.act, but i was not able to found them.

Now we can change its life time, it bubble surface, and may be the decoy noise, it last is hard to do, because is similar to the change of sensivity into AI-Sensors, the hex number is so long.

Any way this may be a help to reduce the Ubber DDs behavior, increasing the decoys effectivity. :up:




if you open the ai_sensors.dat with TT's analyzer and look for the hydrohones sensitivity you find the hex number--

sensitivity = 00000000000400000064000000420000001611FA


problem how do you set that to

sensitivity = 0 ?

is it

sensitivity = 0

or 000000000000000000000etc

i i did try changing the hex number to the same number shown for the radar (figured that would be a higher sensitity than hydrophones)
but the results were just bizaare--



Yes, it is a long number and i really dont understand how to use the File Analyzer from TT.

I try loading Rule, Chose File button, but no way. I do not know how to use the program :oops: .


About the emove of Crew rating, i remove all them from the u-505 and no way, the same behavior is still present, they are Ubber DDs. :dead:

[CB..]

Yes, it is a long number and i really dont understand how to use the File Analyzer from TT.

I try loading Rule, Chose File button, but no way. I do not know how to use the program :oops: .


About the emove of Crew rating, i remove all them from the u-505 and no way, the same behavior is still present, they are Ubber DDs. :dead:


i was confused about how to use the analayzer too-- i'm not sure if i'm using the correct method but what i do is this

i open the program
click load rules
select the AI_sensors rules
then click test rules

all the info appears in the right hand window
then i can click on the various entrys and they appear in the smaller selection boxes to the left
then i can edit them and click UPDATE

then close the program--

if your un sure then re-open the program and load/test the rules again to see if your changes have "stuck"

i think the thing with the crew rating removal is not that it solves all the problems with the DD's
BUT it makes them behave much more consistently SO you can then edit their sensors more reliably
you see what i mean?

it does mention the range and size of bomblet circle for the hedgehogs in the act file -so maybe another thought might be to nerf the hedghogs a little as these are pretty lethal especailly if the DD's drops DC's from the rear and K-guns at the same time--

you know i'm not sure the game really does read much from the AI_sensors.dat after all this--

if i set the noise and waves factor to zero then i get detected at far greater distances then the max distance set in the dat file ---

so i can't help thinking were ona wild goose chase here

the noise and wave factors are what controls the maximum sensor distance -- the AI_sensors.dat max distance entrys don't really do anything at all

:hmm: in fact i'd say that out of all the possible entrys that affect the DD sensors-- the noise and waves factors in the sim.cfg are -by a long long way- the most crucial

i'd allso say that the Devs changed the whole system when they released the 1.4b patch-- i did all this on the V1 boxed version of the game and it was a whole lot more logical--i don't know what's going on with it in the patched version

[Redwine]

i was confused about how to use the analayzer too-- i'm not sure if i'm using the correct method but what i do is this

i open the program
click load rules
select the AI_sensors rules
then click test rules

all the info appears in the right hand window
then i can click on the various entrys and they appear in the smaller selection boxes to the left
then i can edit them and click UPDATE

then close the program--

if your un sure then re-open the program and load/test the rules again to see if your changes have "stuck"

i think the thing with the crew rating removal is not that it solves all the problems with the DD's
BUT it makes them behave much more consistently SO you can then edit their sensors more reliably
you see what i mean?

it does mention the range and size of bomblet circle for the hedgehogs in the act file -so maybe another thought might be to nerf the hedghogs a little as these are pretty lethal especailly if the DD's drops DC's from the rear and K-guns at the same time--

you know i'm not sure the game really does read much from the AI_sensors.dat after all this--

if i set the noise and waves factor to zero then i get detected at far greater distances then the max distance set in the dat file ---

so i can't help thinking were ona wild goose chase here

the noise and wave factors are what controls the maximum sensor distance -- the AI_sensors.dat max distance entrys don't really do anything at all

:hmm: in fact i'd say that out of all the possible entrys that affect the DD sensors-- the noise and waves factors in the sim.cfg are -by a long long way- the most crucial

i'd allso say that the Devs changed the whole system when they released the 1.4b patch-- i did all this on the V1 boxed version of the game and it was a whole lot more logical--i don't know what's going on with it in the patched version


Thanks CB, i was unable to use File Analyzer, it is made for a defaul installation on "Program Files" folder, we have not that folder, we have "Archivos de Programa" folder, even if i give the correct path to the file into "Archivos de Programa", instead "Program Files", the program reject me giving an error message, "File do not exist"

I need to duplicate the installation i think so, almos for the files to be modified :-?


About the noise and wave factor, the behavior is correct i think so....... the max range must to be in favorable conditions, and must to have a certain atenuation by thses factor.

Into a swiming pool, with no waves and noise, you have the max range abilable, and when there are noise and/or waves, this max range is affected and diminuished. It is correct in my opinion.

I understand you point about the removing of crew rating, the extrange is i remove them, and with the incredible slow down sensors, they still catching me.

About the helgedogs, if i am not wrong, they was directional charges, like as the Anti tank ones, they explodes by contact, looking down, and eject a directional blast down, not too much at side or up.

It is imposible to model with present settings, they have a spheric blast radius.
I have setting min and max blast radius to 2m, it is sure exagerated at sides and up, but i am not sure at down, any way i dont remember how much explosive charge they had, may be a 2m down is too much too.

In real life i soupose the real behavior was, if they touch a lateral, and explode, they was not able to perforate the hull, but if they touch the sub in the upper zone, they was designed to rech the hull a meter or two under and perforate it.

Do you suggest some changes on these values ?

May be min radius 1m max radius 2m ?

[CB..]

Thanks CB, i was unable to use File Analyzer, it is made for a defaul installation on "Program Files" folder, we have not that folder, we have "Archivos de Programa" folder, even if i give the correct path to the file into "Archivos de Programa", instead "Program Files", the program reject me giving an error message, "File do not exist"

I need to duplicate the installation i think so, almos for the files to be modified :-?


About the noise and wave factor, the behavior is correct i think so....... the max range must to be in favorable conditions, and must to have a certain atenuation by thses factor.

Into a swiming pool, with no waves and noise, you have the max range abilable, and when there are noise and/or waves, this max range is affected and diminuished. It is correct in my opinion.

I understand you point about the removing of crew rating, the extrange is i remove them, and with the incredible slow down sensors, they still catching me.

About the helgedogs, if i am not wrong, they was directional charges, like as the Anti tank ones, they explodes by contact, looking down, and eject a directional blast down, not too much at side or up.

It is imposible to model with present settings, they have a spheric blast radius.
I have setting min and max blast radius to 2m, it is sure exagerated at sides and up, but i am not sure at down, any way i dont remember how much explosive charge they had, may be a 2m down is too much too.

In real life i soupose the real behavior was, if they touch a lateral, and explode, they was not able to perforate the hull, but if they touch the sub in the upper zone, they was designed to rech the hull a meter or two under and perforate it.

Do you suggest some changes on these values ?

May be min radius 1m max radius 2m ?

for the analyzer perhaps you could create a folder called program files
and create a dummy SH3 installation

just empty folders called UBISOFT
with empty silenthunterIII/data/library folders inside each other then copy the dat file into the libray folder---maybe the anayzler would find and open the file from there then you could edit it and move it back to your proper installation? worth a shot

i think the thing with the max distance setting on the sensors is that with the noise and waves factors set to zero-- you have the perect conditions for detection at maximum range- yet the sensor detects at far greater distance than the max distance in these perfect conditions--so--it doesn't seem to follow that logic

in perfect conditions the sensor should work perfectly right up to it's maximum distance then stop-- so this isn't whats happening- it works far beyond it's maximum distance in perfect conditions--

beats me-- either it doesn't read the max range settings in the dat file
or it uses them in an entirely different way--


the crewrating thing-- are the DD's allways behaving the same ?
rather than the randomised way they behaved before?
if so then that's some thing you can work with-- making them weaker and weaker till you get the results your after-- it was the randomisation that was spoiling the tests before?

i d say yup reduce the damage from the hedghogs if theyre killing you with them every time-- if theyre never killing you with their normal DC's then it's the hedgehogs that are the uber problem?

does that make any sense?

[gouldjg]

Like you guys, I am waiting for the hex to be decoded so no joy there.

I IMHO seem to be getting better chances when facing the uber pin drops.

I cannot figure what I have different from you guys apart from gameplay which is different for all.


Anyway I am going to start testing on the custom mission contributed by Hemisent.

I think I will remove all crew rating as suggested by CB. Then I will probably try setting all to elite, etc etc.

If I tweak in between these, i may get good results, may not.

P.s. Have you guys ever changed depth presision for DC to 100. It seems they have all sorts of problems with this high number and end up blowing their rears.

I have just set it to 50. There does not seem to be any difference when below 30 so what the hell.

Do you guys actully think the active sonar gets locked onto sub or is their a possibilty that the devs set the bubbles to be the all indicator.

I say this because in the sub dat files, i see many references to bubbles which seem to indicate different areas of sub. Maybe this is just for the bubble effects or maybe, just maybe, this is what active locks onto.

@redwine

so it was the decoy :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I had doubts,

It would be nice to establish what can be changed in this filder. I found that the decoys behaved better on the last couple of test so am not jumping straight into changes yet but maybe will do later.

The hedgehog is tricky little git and I hate being knocked out by those.

Guys, just one more slight thing that was noticed.

In some of the main game files i.e. act etc, I notice the line warning of a hydro problem within the game. I am just wondering if one or more ai hydrophones are broken and if so waht class, year, and crew rating could this be.

It also referenced about possible crashes when things are set to destructible in the zones.cfg. This was noticed by myself in the first ever Hollywood as I ended up with a cloaked sub after setting some stuff to destructible.

SO is the hydro warning for ai, or sub as we all claim our own hydro is useless.

Anyway back to the testing,

Good Luck

p.s. I am not playing with elevation or arcs at this moment in time as I do not feel this causes many problems plus it is too complicated for me to digest all that maths.

[CB..]

Gouljg hi! whats the line in the file about the hydrophone warning might shed some light on things i didn't spot it what does it say? anything usefull or just generic

i made myself a customised damage model too (only for personal use tho)
i wanted all the variuos internals of the boat to be easily damaged and destroyed but tried to keep the hull integrity as tough as possible so i could be disabled and still survive--ie engines scopes batteries destroyed etc but still have 100% hull integrity-- much more fun that just watching your hull integrity go down-- :up:
ito be honest im no expert on the zones file so it was more luck than judegment that got the result i was after - i read the warning but didn't fully understand it i must admit :oops: fortunately i haven't had any problems with it --i did get a crash when i worked on the crew health a bit too much (if they have less than a cerain amount of health per crew the game crashes if one get ijured for some reason)

i managed to get it so i get frequent crew injurys and deaths forcing me to make use of the barracks and make more officers medics and repair guys instead of the more combat orientated torp gunners machinists etc makes life more balanced (and the choice more interesting)--great fun really if the DD's would just play ball--

in fact if i could make the hull invincable (with out it blowing the balance of the changes) i'd do that right now lol!

i'd much rather sink to the bottom with all crew dead and everything completely wrecked and fully flooded -and have to declare my self as sunk instead of the game prematurely ending the patrol for me with a lame abandon career screen--means you get the DAS BOOT scenario from time to time and keeps you hoping untill all hope is lost as it were!!

if only the DD's were as responsive the editng as the rest of the game is we'd be laughing!

[gouldjg]

CB

There is a master plan of mine to put all of this is one pack once this last nagging problem is on a even ground. I think most of the remaining hardcore players will be able to tweak the small differences as they please. As long as I get a fair pack out that does not force players into the way or the highway style of play.

It is quite easy to get things destroyed on sub now that we know how to up the hull integrity plus the fact that we also know exactly what crash speed is also.

I propose to half the sub HP so that collisions with ships are better represented in the game i.e. your dead, period.

Of course it is then a matter of halving everything else to compensate i.e. all weapons etc.

I suspect we will automatically get better deck gun representation and better surface battles as all ships have lower weapon values to match the low hit points the dev team allocated to them. This should make things like the surface battles a bit more fun and longer lasting.

The trick is so that the torps are not so affected and thus the ships will still have a glorious end. In the past we had tweaked too much with ships upper deck values and thus people started getting boring sinkings as the upper areas were not triggered to explode when in contact with water and the crash speeds.

I do feel that it may be best to up the armour of the DD keels though. We should just not be able to have that much success with them.

I want to combine the air power mod but set new damage values to match new gun values and new zones.cfg values.

I want to add the latest radar mod so players get better chance to dive unless they feel lucky or suicidal.

I just need to check the sub nets and hope this can be tweaked as players seem to get annoyed that they get a fatality when colliding with nets. Maybe the rebound number can be tweaked for both this and ships hmmmm.

I want better DD behaviour but still escape possibilities either by decoy or evasion only.

Mines should kill instantly and so should the big guns on battle ships so I will maybe leave these to default.

Equipment should be destroyed as you state.

Flooding can now be tweaked to be better and more thrilling.

The question is (what can prevent the player from diving when hit by shells that historically blew holes in sub). Any ideas??????????????

I hear 2 sides

1. The sub can actually take a lot of shell damage

2. One shot stops sub from diving due to hole.

Which is best??????

All in all I want all this combined into one mod. I am not concerned with extreme realism here, just better gameplay. If I have to up hydro ranges or sonar ranges to get longer attacks then so be it. The DC will be accumlative in this anyway. I think the murky water has a added advantage in that if we cannot see underwater, then we do not know exactly how close a DD came to sub so the accumalative effect will work. It is just getting the DD to stick around rather than clearing of after first loss of contacts.

I was actually thinking of messing with DD turn rates or rudder settings so that a wider circle is made during search mode. This may just keep them in the same area longer and also help with the 90-degree arcs issue that so many claim to have problems with. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Personally, I don't care if we have 4 different crew ratings. I can quite easily live with 1 or 2 if it proves stable to have 2.

Can I strongly suggest you guys start playing with depth precision in your tests.

I set the DC to 50 and get some better results. I am about to test at 60 to see if better.

I set Hedgehog to 80 but yet to see any major difference but let me test that 3 more times before setting to 90 or 100.

With these settings, everything seems a little less precise with the uber DD.

Concerning the hydro warning.

I have a vague recollection that it said something in the lines of useless though. You have my word on that.

I am not sure if it stated that something was actually broke or just warning that something could break like the setting of things to be destructible in the zones cfg warning.

[CB..]

The question is (what can prevent the player from diving when hit by shells that historically blew holes in sub). Any ideas??????????????


I was actually thinking of messing with DD turn rates or rudder settings so that a wider circle is made during search mode. This may just keep them in the same area longer and also help with the 90-degree arcs issue that so many claim to have problems with. Do you have any thoughts on this?





if it is possible to set up the zones cfg for the bridge to trigger an explosion then this might help? it's a good side bet that the DD's do actually aim for the bridge even if they don't they nearly allways hit it!!!

this would mean that a direct hit on the bridge would trigger a major explosion or some other sort of damage effect---that would cripple the boat--

this would work if it is possible---(the compartment father stuff? link damage effects ?) if the electric engines/diesel engines and or batteries and or dive planes were badly damaged after a direct shell hit to the bridge compartment-- it would become next to impossible to submerge untill those systems were repaired (and by that time-- your dead)

i don't know how to do this but may be you do?
it does hint that one compartment can be linked to various other systems when the damage is calculated


then if the shell hits any where else on the boat things happen as normal---gives both set of people what they want and it's dynamic--


in a recent patrol i was lining up on a nearby convoy getting ready to dive and wait for them to approach when an aircraft attacked -- EVERYTHING was smashed- and i mean everything the LOT
engines batteries diveplanes scopes compressor pumps torpedo tubes radion hydrophones sonar rudder even the propellors!!! ALL DESTROYED!!!
i didn't get chance to submerge and couldn't submerge because i had no engines propellors or diveplanes--
i wasn't going anywhere after that and the hull integrity was still at 100% :up: it was actually strangely amusing!! "oh well that's the end of that one then" sort of thoughts lol- but it is the sort of thing your after?

it's what i like i must admit--- your dead completely so as far as the patrol is concerned but can imagine your self limping home--


as for the DD's i don't care what is done to them (getting too frustrating now!) as long as they do something interesting!!!

if i don't get some decent gameplay soon i'll go mad!!!

thanks for all the info :up: i'll have a think about it all- hey is it possibel as you hint to control how long it take for the sub to be registered as destroyed?

wonder what hydrophone is broken? perhaps it's one particular setting in the hydrophones? liek max angle or something -- perhaps thats why the DD's can hear you even if you directly behind them sometimes..i dunno it's a pain in the arse what ever it is!!

[Col7777]

CB and the rest, I may have found something.

All I did was rename the Sim.cfg file so the game didn't read it, then I played a few single missions, the first mission I encountered a single merchant, as I raised the scope I went red straight away then he fired on me, after 2 good shots I was damaged.
I tried to get a shot off on him but he was uber, he zig-zagged and fired accurately.

I played the U505 mission, I was detected straight away and hedge-hogged to death first pass, I went to silent running and engines off btw.

Another mission, I was detected straight away and DC'd, I tried to evade but it got me.

The Sim played OK btw with no hiccups, so if it didn't read the Sim.cfg it got the info from somewhere else, see what you think.

[CB..]

CB and the rest, I may have found something.

All I did was rename the Sim.cfg file so the game didn't read it, then I played a few single missions, the first mission I encountered a single merchant, as I raised the scope I went red straight away then he fired on me, after 2 good shots I was damaged.
I tried to get a shot off on him but he was uber, he zig-zagged and fired accurately.

I played the U505 mission, I was detected straight away and hedge-hogged to death first pass, I went to silent running and engines off btw.

Another mission, I was detected straight away and DC'd, I tried to evade but it got me.

The Sim played OK btw with no hiccups, so if it didn't read the Sim.cfg it got the info from somewhere else, see what you think.


genius at work!!! :rock: nice one Col that's a huge find!!! and most likely the answer once we've all had a think about it!! what do you think is going on?
if we remove the sim.cfg will the game be more dependant on the sensor.dats :rock:

[Col7777]

I don't know CB, I was just following this thread and thought what the heck, try anything, I wasn't sure the sim would load but it did and played ok.
I did try renaming the Sim.DLL but that crashed the game, obviously it needs that one.

[CB..]

I don't know CB, I was just following this thread and thought what the heck, try anything, I wasn't sure the sim would load but it did and played ok.
I did try renaming the Sim.DLL but that crashed the game, obviously it needs that one.

nice one!! ok as the game will load with the sim.cfg completely removed (and it sounds like the DD's get very uber if you do this)
first thoughts on this would be
A) remove some of the entrys from the sim.cfg alto-gether and see how that affects the game

ie run it with the hydrophones section deleted from the sim/cfg--

B) run the game without the sim.cfg and edit the AI_sensors.dat to radically weaken the DD sensors untill it balances out?

i'm wondering why on earth the game lists the sim.cfg as an optional file on load up-

[gouldjg]

@CB

I like what you described by the damage and will look into it.

I am also not wanting to go too mad with deviation from original settings as far as the sensors issue is concerned but have a feeling we can solve this in another way as a last resort.

I say we should set the rudders of all DD so they turn slower. That is oneway of preventing the Uber turn on last 200 mtres should the other attempts fail. This way, we could up the sensor power to be more challenging and thus maybe get the long drawn out attacks and slightly clver DD.

Not too much but enough to make a difference. If I am guessing right, this will automatically make their turn radious wider or at least it could take them that few seconds longer. I swear sometimes that the DD try to spin on a sixpence when you watch their turns anyway so lets start with that.

We need to know what does what here i.e.:-

Drag_rudder =0.03 so do we lower or higher this number?

Prop fact_rudder = 0.05 what does this do?

I would suggest we do not dwell too long on the innconsistencies of sensors for the moment and focus on getting as close as possible without doing too much work and all getting niffed off. The more we look into the game, the more we want to change something and this can result in you doing sombody elses job on a near enough full time basis. I will not get too tied down anymore and once I get a better behaved DD, I am wrapping up all my little projects and then chilling out to play for once rather than test test test.

Concerning Damage.

It is possible to do what you state in a number of ways and maybe soon we can all have a different choice. i am wighing up the pro's and con's for each and then will build it.

I used to add ammo etc to compartments and set a critical chance. I bet if I left the armour to 0 or 5, I could have it so a ramming can leave sub with mass destroyed items and flooding.

The crew protection and HP can be set also. The only possible drawback could be the flooding issue will become redundant due to uber hull inegrity.

I will check it out.

Coll777

Hello there fellow Manc (what part? South, north east or west?) Radcliffe here.

Good find and hopefully a possible remedy is in store.

Back to testing again :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Col7777]

@gouldjg, South Manchester near the airport. :)

On topic, I went in that U505 mission and moved the player sub further away to see what would happen.
I was detected straight away, I dove further down and rigged for silent, I got attacked by an aircraft that gave my position away, so I altered course, 2 DD's came straight for me and I got the hedge-hogs plus DC's, badly damaged I dive further down but it was too late, heavy flooding, below crush depth, Aagh!
I was being pinged all the time btw.

[gouldjg]

I may just remove the Hydrophone settings in the sim.cfg and see if anything good happens.

I will be right back after hitting happy times & other missions at flank to see if the DD can hear me before the actives kick in.


After that, I am setting all back to default and then trying the DD rudder settings to match the sub or maybe 0.025 rather than 0.03.

I still do not really understand the DC presision setting though :88)

I have set it to 50 and get a third of DC exploding at 20 mtres when I am at 100. The others come close though so what exactly is this number doing.

If I set it past 50, there is the chance that DD blows its own back off yet still DC will reach my depth. I do notice though that only certain ammount will explode at my depth. It is cool when not in ecternal view as it all sounds so intence with long gaps between explosions.

I am going to set hedgehogs to 100+ incremental and see if there is any difference in behaviour.

On last mission, I got my rudder blown off, so was in a bit of a rut as far as testing manouvers.

[Redwine]

I am not sure, but depth precision is souposed to be the precision of the DDs sensor in to determine your depth.

I use 25 from many months ago, so the original setting of 5 is too much precision.

Any way, DDs do not launch all depth charges at same depth.

In example if you are runing at 100m, their sensor will determine your depth between 75 and 125, and launch depth charges asumming in example 80.

But if for a normal launch at 80, they launch some ones from +/- 20m anyway they will be able to hit you.

I tested with higer values, and anyway they are able to hit you, then decide to set an aceptable value of 25.

[gouldjg]

Cheers for info Redwine

I was hoping it was some form of error figure and was about to set hedgehog to 300 explode depth and 200 presision in hope for some duds.

Anyway Back on topic.

I had my first crash ever with thins game and I do suspect it is bacause I left out sim.cfg all together.

What can I say.

The bloody things were absolutely uber. I could not and I mean NOT break free from being hunted.

This was great as the DC seem to be on my side lately.


Another possible side effect though quite humerous is below. Half the planes were not in the shot, neither were half the DD's :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I spent twenty minutes trying to break lock untill game crashed. Maybe crash was something other than this but it is too risky for me. Still it proves some good points.

http://img449.imageshack.us/img449/7987/untitled0kk.jpg

So for me, the renaming is a no, no. But does this mean we are lost. I think not. It just goes to show how much effect the sim.cfg can have in the game.


Well guys, what do we do next?

I am personally going to tweak the sim.cfg hydrophone settings and maybe even remove them.

I do not want uber vision which is what I got lol.

I do not want uber sonar which is what I got.

I do want a good hydrophone though. I have a funny feeling that the water is messing it up to much due to settings. Maybe it was sensitivity all the way.


My final resort is to change all DD to elite and veteren only as well as tweaking the turn of DD so it is more delayed than present.

I personally think I am slowly getting satisfied for my own benefits of playability, what about you guys.

Any ideas?????

[Redwine]

I am not sure about what i had done, but i set all sensivity values into AI-Sensors.dat to zero.

The long hexe number looks as a secuence of many numbers :hmm: , about 5 or 6, what about if they are a secuence of diferent sensivities, aplies by random ? :hmm:

I just putt them all to zero. what can we lose ? :rotfl:
I used the TT File Analyzer to edit the file, and put all secuence with all zeros. :88) :know:

I use the original Sim.cfg, and my AI_Sensors.dat with sensivity zero, and with reduced search beams.

Well, run the U-505 mission with the Sim.cfg original, and .......

........ no visual or radar trigger needed. :smug:

Above 1/3 they hear me, and start pninging for me, y was able to shoot the carrier and evade 4 of 5 escorts, finally the number 5 kills me, but in time compresion and ahead flank speed attempting to scape.

Any way they still good to detect me at silent running, but original Sim.cfg as sensivity 0.03 in both sensors, i need to do more tests reducing the sensibility in Sim.cfg.

[Col7777]

This is weird, I see some of you can't run with the sim.cfg renamed and now Red has changed a few things and he has good results also.
I just run another mission, I just place the U-boat in grid AM53 and sailed, I got detected by 5 dive bombers, I manged to evade them, then I got a contact of a DD but he was a long way off, he did head in my direction but I dove and went silent he kept coming but eventually I must have lost him.
Then I got a lone merchant, I kept a 15mts till I was close, the moment my scope went up I was detected, he fired straight away and damn close too, I did the same and lowered the scope, I scored a hit.
But back to the renaming of the sim.cfg, my game runs fine like this, the only mods I have is Serge's AI U-boats and a couple of new ships plus the 1.4 patch.

I renamed the sim.cfg to zzsim.cfg, thus keeping the name in case I want to go back.

[Redwine]

This is weird, I see some of you can't run with the sim.cfg renamed and now Red has changed a few things and he has good results also.

Not so good enought, i still having aleatory, random results.

Before, they never detect me if i do not give them a trigger as visual or radar contact.

Now they detect me some times just after start up the mission (U-505), and some times not.

Well. it is astep forward for me, but not enought, they never detect me when submerged before....... now they do it, but only some times, we need to stop that random behavior.

I am near to finish with a psiquiatrician :doh:

[Marhkimov]

I recommend that when you guys make backup copies of files, that you do NOT leave them in their original folder.

Sometimes, renaming a file will not stop SH3 from calling upon that file. For instance, in the library folder, I had two files: cameras.dat and copy of cameras.dat. The copy was meant to be my backup, and I made all of my tweeks in camera.dat, but SH3 was still pulling values from my backup copy.

So just FYI, be safe and remove your backup copies from their original folders.

[Redwine]

I recommend that when you guys make backup copies of files, that you do NOT leave them in their original folder.

Sometimes, renaming a file will not stop SH3 from calling upon that file. For instance, in the library folder, I had two files: cameras.dat and copy of cameras.dat. The copy was meant to be my backup, and I made all of my tweeks in camera.dat, but SH3 was still pulling values from my backup copy.

So just FYI, be safe and remove your backup copies from their original folders.

I cant believe :damn:

Thanks Marhkimov

[gouldjg]

CB & Redwine

I have been looking into the hydrophone issue and think this is what is failing this game. (probably just getting niffed off now and going round in circles but I want to wrap this up soon before my head explodes).

I set up happy times mission but lined myself to face oncomming DD's.

I had already nerfed hydrophone so was expecting to be picked at 4-5 thousand metres as they approached face on.

The bloody things just kept ignoring me untill I went standard and peri depth and they was 1500 mtres away. Maybe due to sensitivety being set at 0.03 the hydro is only one third effective. Maybe it is just screwed up totally. It is just too easy to approach at the moment and it is all doing my head right in.

Before I triple all hydro settings, is there anything i should know or any suggestions you think may help on this. Have you guys already tried this?. Is it me or is the Hydro actually useless, kaput, broke knackered, screwed up etc etc :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: .

I just have a nagging hunch we need to triple the max ranges in all the sensor.dat entries for each piece of passive equipment to compensate for the nerfs added to sim.cfg or the sensor.dat.



p.s. I set it so mission did not have crew rating as CB advised.

Are we sure this still has any effect as I still get random behaviour like before I changed?.

p.p.s. has anyone contacted timetraveler to seek help with the hex problem we are facing. I know he has tackled similar because I looked at the rudder settings and these too are long hex numbers.

[Col7777]

Well I continued the mission, I eventually got a convoy, this was what I was waiting for.
I was at 15mts running silent and was heading for the convoy, I went to external camera and saw the smoke, as it got nearer I went red, I was detected, it was too far for me to have been detected.
A DD came after me, luckily I got him first then I closed on the convoy, I was still red (detected). then another DD came then another, they both hounded me to DEATH.

So I think renaming the Sim.cfg is too much, I'm thinking it is there now to calm things down a bit, but it was exciting.

[CB..]

on the hydrophone ranges i allready tried setting all the sensors to a mxmum range of 40,000 metres a little time ago and it didn't make a jot of difference---perhaps marknimov said about not keeping a back up the files in the same folder is right (sounds wierd but it may a some sort of anti-cheat thing intended to stop tweaking for multi-player games?)


im experimenting with adding some entrys to the sim.cfg in attempt to calm down the extreme uber effect of removing the hydrophone section from the sim.cfg

i just tried this

[Hydrophone]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]


same as col said really got detect an insane distance away and was attacked non stop for over a hour--- the DD's were interesting to watch tho--- i stayed in the control room most of the time to absorb the gameplay a bit and try to enjoy myself for a while--

after a while of non stop but not deadly DC attacks
i had a check via the external camera and blow me if the original two DD's were gone and a lone corvette had taken over the job without me noticing lol!!! that kept going untill it ran out of DC's (it just stopped dropping them but carried on making runs over me anyway---)

so i must have lost the first two DD's (?) and got detected by the corvette unless the DD's really do take shifts?

was in a bad situation any way because the first dc attack nearly blew the sern of the boat and destroyed both rudders -so all i could do was go deep and slow - (i couldn't steer the boat)
i abandoned the mission eventually because the corvette was showing no signs of getting bored or of finding any more DC's to drop LOL!! there's only so much of that you can take without going mad :arrgh!:

strangest thing was immediately after each and every DC drop i got the we have been detected message suggesting that just fro a second the DC's actually did block out the sensors but only for one or two seconds--


i'm hoping adding other entrys to hydrophone section one by one might slowly bring the DD's back into a reasonable level of competence--

so i'm going to try this next

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=60 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]

[gouldjg]

Right guys here is my report and it is good news.

My settings are as follows,

kept sim.cfg in place but made the following changes

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=0.1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=27 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.00 ;[>=0]

[Sonar]
Detection time=15 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.028 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=40 ;[s]

Nothing too scientific but it was a good start. Ignore the active at the moment as it is still in very very early stages.


Anyway

My senor.dat changes are as follows

I changed min range values on both passive and active to 200

I added xtra 2-3 hundred on max range for all actives.

I tripled all passives and set hydrophone max range to 30000.

I set all crew in Happy times mission to level 4 elite.

I started mission and went to peridepth ready to turn to on-comming DD for test so I am approx 7000 mtres away.

I hit flank and after couple of seconds, I am detected by DD on far side. Ok ok this is a bit too long a distance to be detected but at least it indicates that hydrophones are infact way too nullified by either the crew rating or ranges.

This is great i thought. (my hunch seems to be right).

Anyway I continued at flank as DD was way off but closing to investigate.

As he gets closer and other DD's begin to close, I hit silent running and lose them quite easily.

Even though they are elite, it seems that they are restricted by their equipment as the DC attacks were a good 10-20 metres off line. This may be because of the 200 mtre min value.

All in all I think this is a great result but obviously needs to be further tested and it is my bed time.

If you look at the air cfg. You will notice the penalties for airbase ratings. I seriously think that this is similar to DD ratings in the fact that it just lets them use their sensors better i.e. no penalties. I do not think it makes DD do different attacks etc.

So I think this is a good start point for early war DD, then we have to get a late war DD figures set.

Guys

I am excited by this as it is the first time that i felt like I may need to approach as in sh2. I say this meaning that I will have to plan my approach rather than my shot.

So tommorow I am going to spend some considerable time testing this for hydrophone detection.

Could you please remind me of reasonable ranges for Hydrophnes in the happy times. Also could you state what speeds should be detected.

I think we may be getting somewhere here. I am not fussed about only having elite and veterern ships if this is going to work and I am sure many other players will feel the same. The equipment should be our advantage, not the ratings of the crew.

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

Please try to duplicate this and report back your results.

[CB..]

watch out for your speed factors Gouldjg the maximum speed of the corvetets and other smaller escorts is around 18 knots -- any higher than that and you have no dead sensor time with the fast turning covettes and that makes then a nightmare to lose if their awake--

can i suggest decreasing the speed factor and
beefing the hydrophones up by reducing the noise and waves factor-- this is one of the main hampering effects on the sensors--

as an experiment try setting the hydrophone waves and noise factors to 0.00 and see if the results are more sensitive hydrophones--

if we haven't as red is finding gotten past the randomisation of all these changes by something then i just dunno what we can do with it all

[CB..]

here's a thought for Col's sim cfg trick---having thought about this speed factor thing-- and my recent patrol encounter---i MUST have lost the first two DD's they don't just go away if they still have a contact on you-

the corvette must then have detected me--and as i had no speedfactor limit in the sim cfg it was impossible for it to lose contact with me--

what ever the default speedfactor is for the hyrdrophones when it doesn't find an entry in cfg file- it must be lower than the top speed of the first two DD's (a clemson and a another fully fledged DD)

so as the hydrophones are extremely uber with this set up ( and it is at least very consitent no randomisisation noticed as yet by any-one)

why not exploit the normal DD tactics and give them somthing to think about---

im going to try this

as the full hydrophone section in the sim.cfg

[Hydrophone]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Speed factor=5 ;[kt]


this will completely cripple the fast moving DD's (no matter how uber the phones are)

and force them to rely on those DD's that nearly allways sit stationary nearby whilst one DD makes attack runs--

it allso makes sense of the normal convoy escort tactic--- the front and rear DD's in a convoy frequently turn side on to the convoy and stop dead for a minute or two before straightening up and heading along in the normal position---they do this often enough for it to be very effective with the uber hydrophones---all the other fast moving DD's will be as blind as a bat-- and here's the point--including those DD's that the AI sends out to investigate the contact--blind as a bat

but if the slow dd's detect you --and they WILL--at very high distances-- there should be plenty there for the AI and the DD's to work with---it will test just how well if at all the DD's co-operate---

if this pans out it will at least be interesting because you will know that the DD's are working as a team--because ONLY the stationary and very slow moving DD's will be able to detect you-- (but they will be as uber as all heck)

sounds fun if nothing else to try :-j if it works :sunny:

[gouldjg]

watch out for your speed factors Gouldjg the maximum speed of the corvetets and other smaller escorts is around 18 knots -- any higher than that and you have no dead sensor time with the fast turning covettes and that makes then a nightmare to lose if their awake--

can i suggest decreasing the speed factor and
beefing the hydrophones up by reducing the noise and waves factor-- this is one of the main hampering effects on the sensors--

as an experiment try setting the hydrophone waves and noise factors to 0.00 and see if the results are more sensitive hydrophones--

if we haven't as red is finding gotten past the randomisation of all these changes by something then i just dunno what we can do with it all

Yep I think I can safely decrease speed factors now to a more suitable level.

I want the DD to be a B.I.T.C.H. to lose but not immpossible.

At the moment CB, I am feeling more inclined to set all DD to elite and veterern only due to the very reason that they are not as affected by waves or noise factors from the start unlike the rookie etc settings.

If the air.cfg penalties are anything to go bye then I suspect vast differences between DD crew ratings though I think the devs never had time to tweak and test evrything in the settings hense the extreme dumb ai at times.

I cannot understand why you had previously changed this but never got the same result.

I am also geting inclined to decrease the arc for the hydrophone but leave that till later on in testing. I have just got to make sure there are gaps in the convoys to approach.

I seem to have gotten rid of the pin point imho but I also think this can be improved by rudder tweaking on DD's should my intial tweaks prove to be out. That way they can still be deadly but not uber deadly on turning with sub.

Like I said,

Duplicate my settings and run a test if you have time tonight.

I do feel we have gained much ground on this now and should not expect the immpossible but get the gameplay done to a reasonable level.

I seriously do not think I can to go back to old settings now that I know I could make it harder to approach convoys by tweaking this way.

[CB..]

I cannot understand why you had previously changed this but never got the same result.


it's one the main issues of the thread really that folks seem to be divided into two distinct groups---those who are getting the uber pin point drops and instant death scenarios--and those who find that the DD's are absolutely useless no matter what you do to them (in long term gameplay)

im one of the ones who has useless DD's--
i've tried everything and i mean everything to try to sort this out--- notice that even using Col's cfg idea which gives the DD's insanely uber hydrophones the three DD's in my previous mision did not actually suceed in killing me---even tho my damage system is hugely more fragile than stock AND my modded DC's have a higher damage rating and radius than stock- AND all i could do was travel in a straight line beacuse my rudders had been destroyed--so i was a sitting target-

elite novice veteran made little noticible difference for me- in fact nothing made any consistent difference

it's all a bit of a joke !! sadly-- :cry:

(this is not down to my "skills" as a virtual sub captain i hasten to add lol!)

i'm going to use what i can get to get some sort of gameplay going and i think with the idea (previus post) using Col's uber hydrophone hack--i might just at least be able to have some enjoyable encounters with the DD's--i gave up on any sort of realism related gameplay months ago :oops:

making a mod for general use is going to be a nightmare because of this inconsitency-- there's something going on with the DD sensors that we just don't understand as yet--

[Ducimus]

Right guys here is my report and it is good news.

My settings are as follows,

kept sim.cfg in place but made the following changes

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=0.1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=27 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.00 ;[>=0]

[Sonar]
Detection time=15 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.028 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=40 ;[s]

Nothing too scientific but it was a good start. Ignore the active at the moment as it is still in very very early stages.


Anyway

My senor.dat changes are as follows

I changed min range values on both passive and active to 200

I added xtra 2-3 hundred on max range for all actives.

I tripled all passives and set hydrophone max range to 30000.

I set all crew in Happy times mission to level 4 elite.

I started mission and went to peridepth ready to turn to on-comming DD for test so I am approx 7000 mtres away.

I hit flank and after couple of seconds, I am detected by DD on far side. Ok ok this is a bit too long a distance to be detected but at least it indicates that hydrophones are infact way too nullified by either the crew rating or ranges.

This is great i thought. (my hunch seems to be right).

Anyway I continued at flank as DD was way off but closing to investigate.

As he gets closer and other DD's begin to close, I hit silent running and lose them quite easily.

Even though they are elite, it seems that they are restricted by their equipment as the DC attacks were a good 10-20 metres off line. This may be because of the 200 mtre min value.

All in all I think this is a great result but obviously needs to be further tested and it is my bed time.

If you look at the air cfg. You will notice the penalties for airbase ratings. I seriously think that this is similar to DD ratings in the fact that it just lets them use their sensors better i.e. no penalties. I do not think it makes DD do different attacks etc.

So I think this is a good start point for early war DD, then we have to get a late war DD figures set.

Guys

I am excited by this as it is the first time that i felt like I may need to approach as in sh2. I say this meaning that I will have to plan my approach rather than my shot.

So tommorow I am going to spend some considerable time testing this for hydrophone detection.

Could you please remind me of reasonable ranges for Hydrophnes in the happy times. Also could you state what speeds should be detected.

I think we may be getting somewhere here. I am not fussed about only having elite and veterern ships if this is going to work and I am sure many other players will feel the same. The equipment should be our advantage, not the ratings of the crew.

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

Please try to duplicate this and report back your results.

Been following this thread, hope you guys crack it soon, the DD's are so unbeleivably stupid it defies logic.

I might try some of this when i get home. Will jungmans DC_20 mod work for this? TT's file examiner(analyzer?) i couldn't quite figure out.

Will making the hydrophones uber by zeroing them out (and probably a few other tweaks) in the sim.CFG and downing down DC blast radius be sufficient? Obviously i havent understood everything said here.

All i know for sure is, i shoudlnt have to surface, and run at flank speed in broad daylight, 5000 meters from a convoy, and then.. only THEN be noticed. Its like you have to pop the hatch with a megaphone and yell out,:

"Ello' there tommy, mind if i take a few of these T3's out"

The reply would probably be:

"oh no what, its tea time.. jolly good!"

[Jungman]

sensitivity = 00000000000400000064000000420000001611FA


It is not one number, it is a group, that is why you must manual hex edit them. TT tool wil not work.

[gouldjg]

Right guys

Here is a setting you can try and may enjoy. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Open up your hedgehog sim and set the following:-

Detonate_depth = 300
Depth_precision = 300

Result = random dud & premature exploding hedgehogs.

This is something I always wanted. Some detonate early and some make it to your depth. It looks and feels cool whether it is realistic or not.

The setting of DC depth precision at 50 may in fact be a little too extreme, I would set it to 35 for more stable results.

Now the question is, "should I make it 400 & 400 to ensure it can go beyond 300mtres depth?”

Although having sensitivity would give us more to work with, I think it may not be essential but stand to be corrected on this.

CB

You raise a very good theory concerning the hydro.

It would be cool to know the exact figure the DD does it attack runs on and then set the speed factor 1 or 2 digits below. I am guessing that 15 is in fact a better number though I am awaiting your test results on the extreme low number.

Guys, do we think the enemy spotting is too good or too bad? It may be ok but your thoughts are welcome.

I think I am getting a feel for all this now. (sits there and prays nothing goes wrong)

I still have not resorted to effecting the turns of all DD but this option is open should the uber pin point return in my game which by the way it seems to have gone and the 200mtre nerf seems to be working.

I am wondering if DD rudder changes will in fact make them behave slightly better.

What exactly is the historic facts concerning the DD turns?. Are they as sharp as they are shown in game or was they supposed to be less able to make such sharp turns. I thought I heard that sub should turn faster than DD but this may be wrong.



I may just have to slightly down size the late war sonar arc as I am now finding it a tad too difficult to evade late war DD's. I may not go as steep as 60 but rather a 75-80.

We still can also tweak the decoys to either last longer or make more noise if in fact the hydro works better.

All these options. :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

[gouldjg]

@Ducimus


I have a small feeling that you will soon not have to do this :up:.

Then I suspect we will all cry cos we cannot get near a convoy :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .

I suppose it is now a matter of finding the best compromise distances here.

Finnally,

Does anyone know how to get rid of the "we have been detected message" I need it right now for testing but soon will want to get rid of it all together.

It would be cool to be approaching convoy only to spin scope and see DD, heading straight for me or suddenly hear pinging :rock: :rock: :rock: .

Thats what I want and by jolly joe, I will get it :hulk:

[Marhkimov]

I totally understand that all of you guys are working very hard to find out how the AI does it's job, and I respect that...

But one thing that you should all keep in mind is how are you going to release a mod that everyone can enjoy? Yeah, you guys are still in the early stages of figuring everything out, but don't forget, ok?

The last thing we need is another never-ending thread such as the 8km visibility thread... Remember that all of your experimentation has to be able to yield some kind of feasable mod.

Ok guys? cool. :up:

[gouldjg]

I totally understand that all of you guys are working very hard to find out how the AI does it's job, and I respect that...

But one thing that you should all keep in mind is how are you going to release a mod that everyone can enjoy? Yeah, you guys are still in the early stages of figuring everything out, but don't forget, ok?

The last thing we need is another never-ending thread such as the 8km visibility thread... Remember that all of your experimentation has to be able to yield some kind of feasable mod.

Ok guys? cool. :up:

What exactly are you trying to say Marhkimov :hmm:

Is it me being paranoid or is this some type of ticking off we are getting for making a long thread???????.

If it is just my way of reading your comments I do apologise but if it is a slight ticking off well I am not having none of it (always a rebel at heart: :rotfl: ).

I think it is quite clear that not everybody is going to be pleased with whatever is put out as a mod as far as sensors is concerned (probably why no one has ever attempted before). It is equally clear that we have 2 main problems to address in this thread:-

1. Pin point dropping of DD

2. Dumb DD

As far as I am concerned, I have my own approach on both issues but still would like input from Redwine and CB considering we are all (like you suggest) Just learning what does what.

And thus I am inclined to think that it may be best just to share all tests and new knowledge in one place i.e. this thread.

I personally do not care if it drags on and on to a 1000 posts as long as I am getting some results. I will continue to share mine with the others who are working on the same issues but in a different way.

I also do not care if someone else wants to tackle this as long as it is tackled which after 8 months has not been done yet. This is definitely not a one-man job yet. Just too much testing is required.


My plan is quite simple and not any big secret. I firmly sit on the fence for realism unless it takes out gameplay and gameplay unless it totally detracts from realism. So I aim to please no one except others and myself in that line of thought. The extremes of both can read our work and tweak to further their own needs.

1. Combine all latest sensors into one mod i.e. air power, DC and Hedgehog fix, Uber pin point nerf, Improved ai hydro detection, Improved sub radar, etc etc.

My line of thought is to set all DD to level field i.e. elites and then nerf sensors on equipment only and sim.cfg. This is different than CB's idea but at least we are trying 2 different methods and the best of both will probably be rolled into one.

2. Tweak out inconsistencies with the above.

3. Total Re-build of damage model so that sub gets very killed after collisions and equipment gets destroyed (I have super secret methods for this and again not everyone’s cup of tea). This mean I have to half everything including weapon values, crash speeds, Hull integrity, crew, blah blah blah.

Only after this is done, will I attempt to play this game.

All in all, I think I am trying to get a common theme going here that should at the end of the day help suit all needs.

If there is one thing that I have learned about this modding, it is the fact that not everyone is going to agree your work. So why do I continue to try????

Well I am stamping my foot and saying this.

If people want to help, then help,

If they want to get ideas, then get them,

If they want to do a better job, then do it.

If they want to just impede, then shove off, cos I am just not listening to it anymore. It ruins my style and gets in my face (a little vent there).

If they want me to leave project in better hands, then say so and I will gladly sink into the shadows and concentrate on making my own game better behaved.

Anyway back to topic,

I am struggling in seeing how min/max elevation settings look in my mind.

I think everything starts from nose of sub or centre.

So max bearing is the degrees set for each side of sub i.e. the sonar arc (by the way, I notice the type 147A has a min value of 0.06 any ideas as to why?????)

Max/min Height is also pretty obvious

Am I correct that the elevation is what makes the cone effect i.e. diameter of sensor? Or does it set the movement restrictions?

If someone can expand on their thoughts, I would really appreciate it.

On the subject of Hydrophones.

I think My triple the values works a little too well so may need to nerf these individually.

On the Subject of Actives,

What exactly is the majority opinion. I think they are not all that bad apart from the fact that 90 degree arc may be a little bit extreme.

Also looking at the picture

http://www.de220.com/Electronics/Sonar/Sonar%20Photos/Sonar%20Patterns.jpg

I am suspecting that the reason they are so effective at depth and course is because their ranges are not interfered with by the sim.cfg settings.

I would go as far as to say that should we play with these figures as well as range and elevation, we could get vast differences in accuracy of DC.

I am not talking stupid changes that make the sonar ineffective. I actually need to think on this one for a while.

Hmmm, I also notice that the Q sensors are not represented in the sim.cfg. Maybe that is why they are not losing you on last few seconds.

Theories

I need to snoop at the Q rules here.

[Redwine]

sensitivity = 00000000000400000064000000420000001611FA


It is not one number, it is a group, that is why you must manual hex edit them. TT tool wil not work.

That is i was refering above, the long hexe numbre i spoupose is a group or secuence of numbers.

I has not know about how it works, then i spoupose they are a secuence of 6 numbers, and my suposition was the game take one of those 6 at time in random secuency, then i put all zeros.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

We need TimeTraveller help on this ........

I put the original Sim.cfg, and my AI_Sensors.dat with extremelly reduced sweep arcs. All Creww rating removed by semiclons into the mission U-505.

The DDs was able to detect me with no visual or radar trigger, but they still Ubber DDs. With an active beam and sweep arc of only 3* !!! and a deaf zone in pasive of 30* at bow. (minbearing = 15)

I reduce sensivity and increase noise fatcor, and then they can notdetect me without visual or radar alert, i was able to manage to escape from them, some times succesfull, and another time escape from 4 of them, and only one was capable to maintain contact and kill me.

This last behavior may be aceptable, but is only reached with the sensors in mode as i can put flank speed near them and they do not detect me if i do not give them a radar or visual alert.



I may just have to slightly down size the late war sonar arc as I am now finding it a tad too difficult to evade late war DD's. I may not go as steep as 60 but rather a 75-80.

We still can also tweak the decoys to either last longer or make more noise if in fact the hydro works better.

All these options. :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

No way Gouldjg, i start up a reduction in sonar beams to reach a point where they had troubles, i finished into a 3* active beam, and they still killing me as if they have a sailor with the head into the water looking for me :rotfl:

I dont touch the decoys yet, but i found how to manage its effective surface, and life time.

But to manage its noise level is the same fact than discused here with the sensivity, is a long hexe number, may be a secuence of numbers i cant understand how to edit. :hmm: :up:

I note there ae many difrent decoys, may be due to the age of war, they has effective surfaces from 250 m2 up to 500 m2, and life times from 5 min up to 12.5 min.

We must to note in the game its bubbles surface do not reach the sea surface. In real life the bubbles must to rise up to the surface increasing the effective surface of decoy, if you was at 100m depth, and the bubbles courtain has 10m wide it gives you a 1000 m2 of effective decoy surface.

We can rise up its effective surface up to 1000 m2 for all deoys, and its life time up to 15 or 20 min for all them in an attempt to manage those deadly american ubber DDs. :hmm:

But i dont know how to increase its noise, that long hexe number is a mistery for me. I dont know if it is asecuence of numbers and what is each number into the secuence, may be a secuence of different noises along the decoy life time.

We can put all the same, but what values are used to define noise....... decibels, a numbrer from 0 to 10, a number from 0 to 1..... :hmm: :dead:

[Col7777]

@ gouldjg,

That 'We've been detected' message you want to get rid of, it gets on my nerves too after a while when I damn well know we've been detected. So I just move the sonar man from his station, then if I need him back I'll send him there.

[gouldjg]

This Q sensor is now bugging me as I am thinking it may be seperate from cfg nerfs.

I could be wrong though but it would explain a lot.

Why is it not in the sim.cfg or is it in fact in there and tied to sonar.

Are the individual sensor types actually tied into the cfg or are they seperate?.

Can they be added to the CFG i.e. duplicate the sonar settings and rename to match. (getting wild now).

I just wonder if the 0 rule refer to cfg may work for this.

What files do I snoop at apart from sensors.dat.

I think we need timeraveller to make sence of the long hex numbers. We will maybe have more options to test.

[Redwine]

This Q sensor is now bugging me as I am thinking it may be seperate from cfg nerfs.

I could be wrong though but it would explain a lot.

Why is it not in the sim.cfg or is it in fact in there and tied to sonar.


True, if this sensor is modellated and is hidden in another place, it can explains why they blast me out of water with my active sensor with a only 3* beam.

May be the explanation for the sailor with his head into the water looking for me .......... :hmm:

[CB..]

sensitivity = 00000000000400000064000000420000001611FA


It is not one number, it is a group, that is why you must manual hex edit them. TT tool wil not work.

and? don't stop now your on a roll---

[Col7777]

Gouldjg,

We must be thinking alike a little, I know we want to sort this out but I too was wondering why/if things could be added to the sim.cfg may be later perhaps.

[Krupp]

The last thing we need is another never-ending thread such as the 8km visibility thread...

Hmmm? :o This is quite awkward comment in public forum, even tho every one has a right to say what they want. Does it hurt someone to have long threads?

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

Personally, I have been following this topic with great interest. I can't do much else than give :up: for these guys. It would be important for the game to have features they are after.

[gouldjg]

This Q sensor is now bugging me as I am thinking it may be seperate from cfg nerfs.

I could be wrong though but it would explain a lot.

Why is it not in the sim.cfg or is it in fact in there and tied to sonar.


True, if this sensor is modellated and is hidden in another place, it can explains why they blast me out of water with my active sensor with a only 3* beam.

May be the explanation for the sailor with his head into the water looking for me .......... :hmm:


I may just write all the sensors to the sim.cfg and hope for good luck.

I know it states that if sensitivety is 0 refer to cfg.

Well what about all the other settings i.e. noise, wave etc etc?.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Maybe, Just Maybe,

The crew ratings controls the other settings by adding and subtracting modifiers,

Then maybe, just maybe

We delete all crew ratings, thus this gives us 0 modifiers, we then add individual sensors to sim.cfg and set tweaks.

A really really wild shot :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Redwine]

After set the long hexe number into sensivity in AI-Sensors.dat all to zeros, and remove all back-up files from the folder :

now my DDs become completely deaf.

They can not hear me even at flank speed around them, submerged at periscope or crash dive depth.

They only can spot visually my periscope and shoot it visualy.

This means this number works after all, now we need to discover and know how to adjust a playable value there.

We need to know what is this

sensitivity = 00000000000400000064000000420000001611FA




Personally, I have been following this topic with great interest. I can't do much else than give :up: for these guys. It would be important for the game to have features they are after.

Thanks, stay here with us..... :up:

[gouldjg]

Redwine

I am wondering if crew rating affects sensitivety hence the different numbers.

The one BIG BIG BIG problem, is the fact we can only guess what crew rating does.

I have yet to find anything apart from the airbase modifiers that could give any significant proof or evidence to what exactly they do.


Maybe Jungmann can explain some more concerning the actual numbers.

[CB..]

We must be thinking alike a little, I know we want to sort this out but I too was wondering why/if things could be added to the sim.cfg may be later perhaps.

:up: :up:

kudos to Col definitely many thanks Col!! as ever you have the knack of finding ways to get round stubborn problems with a deft stroke of the imagination!! :|\

:rock:

by removing some of the sim.cfg entrys and keeping others it makes controling and exploiting the uber hydrophone effect a very flexible system---that is consistent mission by mission--most importantly-- (everything else i and others have tried has worked wll in one mission - but been absolutely useless in the next making it all worthless for genuine gameplay and any campaign/career use)

i 'm running a test patrol ( i edited the happy days mission to 1942 and removed all the shipping just leaving the player sub-- so i could in effect just play a campaign patrol with the benifits of allready being in a reasonable patrol zone at mission start-- this means i can hit time excell and within a couple of minutes get a report on a convoy some where within range --this means i get different convoys depending on the normal campaign randomisations-- making the tests more relevant to normal campaign style play- im getting too lazy to start a new career each time i test something lol so this method is the next best thing -- allso makes a hugely dynamic and randomised single mission --i reccomend it for a semi campaign style mission without the long drawn out travelling to and fro the patrol zone--kind of half way house mission--)

by accident i forgot to set my settings in the sim.cfg to the ones i was meaning to try from last nights posts and ran the mission with these settings instead

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=60 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Speed factor=10 ;[kt]


as you say these are the only entrys for the hydrophone section -- the rest are defaulted to the uber no sim/cfg effect


wonderfull stuff really --given all the struggle i've been thru tweaking this messing with that - here i have (for me anyway) a good solid and most importantly RELIABLE way of tweaking the DD's sensors--

and finally i'm getting good solid GAMEPLAY as a result-- :sunny:

with the above hydrophone settings
i negated the long range uber phones effect and was able to reach the convoy without being detected submerged at silent--

only when i was lining up on a merchant did i get detected -- and the pinging started lol--
and the great part for me about this was the way the DD's kept attacking - losing me then detecting me again - allmost as if they were waiting for me to try to reach scope depth for a torpedo attack then springing on me--

in about an hours play i only got the we have been detected message three times--the DD's pinged around in an effective search pattern
and made it very risky to try to get the merchants--and as is becomeing usual with this great cfg method - the difficulty slowly rises as time goes by-- as other DD's begin to come over to help --once they start forming the circle around me and sitting at dead stop scanning with their phones it gets more and more dangerous---till finally they close the net around me and if i'm still daft enough to be trying to sink the merchants instead of getting the heck out of there- well i'm in for a pasting :yep: :up: :rock:

nice one Col!! this is the one for me---wonderfull gameplay and DD behaviuor-- with lots of scope for experimentation--

I highly reccomended this method of tweaking for those people who like me have allways suffered from useless DD's--it gives the DD's uber hydrophones and allows to control the cirumstances in which they can use them -- a hugely flexible system--it allows me to follow my rule of thumb ball park idea that the best gameplay will result from uber hydrophones and crap sonar for the DD's (if you stuck with useless DD's as a norm- not uber pin pointers as others experience-- that's a different problem and not one i have ever suffered with )

i'll go back and see how the rest of the mission pans out later on ( it's night time in the game and it play havoc with my eyes playing night time missions during real world daylight!! i end up going cross eyed trying to see what's going on ! givng my self a head-ache in the process)

[Col7777]

Well just out of curiosity and why not, I tried something else. This time I renamed SH3Sim (clut) file, the game loaded Ok and I played 2 missions.
The first was U505, I was able to get close to the carrier and fire off a couple of torp's without being detected, I was travelling at 6knts at peri depth, the DD's totally ignored me.
The next was the Barnham mission, again I did the same, this time a DD came withing 300mts from me, I went red as he passed then back to green again. I was then able to get close to the BB and destroy it, and the DD's never came to investigate.

This just shows the opposite effect from the other way I tried it earlier, I know we don't want this at all but it may prove of interest to this topic.

[Redwine]

@ CB :

Happy for you ...... but i dont understand waht are strange in that you had done to obtain a good behavior, only the hydrophones settings ?

Did you tryed the U-505 mission ? I have good gameplay in some mission too, but when go to U-505, they are Ubber DDs.

Please try U-505 and comment, you have now a good game play into a determined mission...OK , but what happens when fight against those Ubbers DDs ?

Please can you upload at rapidshare you files to test ?


@ Cool7777 :

Same behavior happens to me if i attempt to reduce the Ubber guys at U-505.



Now i will try this :

Sensivity at AI-Sensors.dat was :

sensitivity = 00000000000400000064000000420000001611FA

looks as a secuence of numbers, the first is 00000000 it is zero, the second is

00040000 really i dont know if this must to be readed from left to right or from right to left, but seems to be the second number into the secuence.

I adjust now......... as a shot in the dark of course :rotfl:

sensitivity = 0004000000040000000400000004000000040000

[Kaleunt]

About the sonars, the Q type possess in all ways the sames characteristics
as the type 147A or 123A you can observe that in the AI_sensors.dat
But when you open the sns.cfg files in the Sea folder and compare US
and British destroyers you will see that the Q sonar is used exclusively
by US and the differents numbered Type sonars (123A 128A etc...) are used exclusively by the British. The sonars in SHIII are not modelled as their real life counterparts but as generics sonars mixing the 3 type of sonars shown in the above graphics. It is the same for the radars, the game doesn't make any difference between airsearch and surface search radars. The differents types of sensors come in succession in each ship
equipment in way reflecting their evolution as long as the war progress.
Exemple a Flower Corvette begin the war with a 123A sonar and end the war with a 147A sonar, the only differences in game between these sonars are their range and sensitivity.
Why this simplification because each sensors is tied to a particular node
of their 3D model. Each 3D model possess only one node per sensor
H for hydrophone, N for Sonar, R for radar. Each node possess precise coordinates related to the position on their 3D model. For the Flower
the hydrophone and sonar nodes are H01 and N01,they share the same position, so tey are situated at X=7,977465-E5, Y=-0,41818246 and
Z=1,8232497 from the center of the 3D model.
You can't add others sensors without creating more nodesand allocating them to a 3D model.

[CB..]

@ CB :

Happy for you ...... but i dont understand waht are strange in that you had done to obtain a good behavior, only the hydrophones settings ?

Did you tryed the U-505 mission ? I have good gameplay in some mission too, but when go to U-505, they are Ubber DDs.

Please try U-505 and comment, you have now a good game play into a determined mission...OK , but what happens when fight against those Ubbers DDs ?

Please can you upload at rapidshare you files to test ?


@ Cool7777 :

Same behavior happens to me if i attempt to reduce the Ubber guys at U-505.

ill give the 505 mission a try -tho in terms of gameplay i don't expect to surive that mission-- going up against DD's with hedgehogs in such a disadvantaged position is suicidal from a gameplay point of view!!

no point me sending you the files as theyre isn't really anything to send--!!

my AI_sensors.dat is basically stock

tho i did change the hydrophone sensitivity to this in TT anazler

sensitivity=00000000000000000000000000000000000000 00


and the only other changes are the sim.cfg stuff
i've even restored the crewrating entrys in the campaign .rnd

[Redwine]

About the sonars, the Q type possess in all ways the sames characteristics
as the type 147A or 123A you can observe that in the AI_sensors.dat
But when you open the sns.cfg files in the Sea folder and compare US
and British destroyers you will see that the Q sonar is used exclusively
by US and the differents numbered Type sonars (123A 128A etc...) are used exclusively by the British. The sonars in SHIII are not modelled as their real life counterparts but as generics sonars mixing the 3 type of sonars shown in the above graphics. It is the same for the radars, the game doesn't make any difference between airsearch and surface search radars. The differents types of sensors come in succession in each ship
equipment in way reflecting their evolution as long as the war progress.
Exemple a Flower Corvette begin the war with a 123A sonar and end the war with a 147A sonar, the only differences in game between these sonars are their range and sensitivity.
Why this simplification because each sensors is tied to a particular node
of their 3D model. Each 3D model possess only one node per sensor
H for hydrophone, N for Sonar, R for radar. Each node possess precise coordinates related to the position on their 3D model. For the Flower
the hydrophone and sonar nodes are H01 and N01,they share the same position, so tey are situated at X=7,977465-E5, Y=-0,41818246 and
Z=1,8232497 from the center of the 3D model.
You can't add others sensors without creating more nodesand allocating them to a 3D model.


Lot of thanks for info Kaleunt, very interesting and usefull.

The matter is we had tweaked those american sensors but they still Ubber. Tweaking these sensor o not have reaction in the game.

American DDs still prey on you as rabid dogs...... :damn:

Brithish DDs are more gentleman.... :rotfl: 3 or 4 passed and they stops and go to drink a cup tea. :know:

[Col7777]

CB,

In the U505 mission, I moved the player sub a bit further away to give myself a chance, I still got detected but it was fun trying to evade.

[Redwine]

ill give the 505 mission a try -tho in terms of gameplay i don't expect to surive that mission-- going up against DD's with hedgehogs in such a disadvantaged position is suicidal from a gameplay point of view!!


Not agree with that at all, historical survive probabilities are 2 of 3 against those dangerous later war time DDs.

I read many times a depth charge attack had between 1 to 3% of succesful probabilities at early war times, it was increased in later war times up to 30 to 40% according diferent sources.

You must to have 2/3 of survive probabilities at later times.

[CB..]

Not agree with that at all, historical survive probabilities are 2 of 3 against those dangerous later war time DDs.

I read many times a depth charge attack had between 1 to 3% of succesful probabilities at early war times, it was increased in later war times up to 30 to 40% according diferent sources.

You must to have 2/3 of survive probabilities at later times.

Ok understood :up:
i guesse it's just the way i role-play the game--
i play as my-self really and always aviod risks if at all possible--
if it was real in any way i would probably give up on the attack the instant i was detected against such a difficult and well defended target

i'll do as Col suggests :up: and set my self out side detection range at the start of the mission so i can gauge just how difficult it is to avoid detection-- :ping:

[CB..]

well i edited the 505 mission to put me just out side visual range at scope depth ahead of the taskforce--

here's the lat long entrys for the player sub if you want to try this Red

Long=-2327500.000000
Lat=2586520.000000
Height=-15.000000



there's probably some randomisation for the position of the taskforce but anything is a more balanced test than appearing in the worst possible location at the start of the mission (how did you get there ? undetected and un harmed anyway!)

i was able to slowly creep in at silent but got detected at about 1500 metres from the lead DD---went deep (didn't have a good angle on the carrierfor a fair shot) and rode out a very prolonged attack from al 5 of the DD's (taking it in turns as they somtimes do)

took some minor damage but they did their job and i wasn't able to get up the scope depth to attack the carrier--

well i could have tried blowing ballast going to flank and hoping i could get up launch and get back down again before i was killed -- but that seemed un feasibly risky with the lives of the crew at astake if you follow the role play attitude i take-not against a late war task force any way--)

one particular DD was more stubborn than the rest and even after the task force had passed by and was gone - this lone DD remained un shake-able and it slowly began to take it's toll on the hull integrity and so -on--
damage here damage there --

i wouldn't have said it was uber as it was only sciring damage with it's hedgehogs ( and thats to me an uber weapon anyway so i expect it to be )

considering the DD's have 8 k-gun launchers 4 on each side and the normal DC racks the fact that he was only getting hits with his hedgehogs says a lot--

over-all i'd say that i didn't find them uber-- and certainly there was no pin point drops at any moment-- in the context of full campaign and career gameplay i would rarely if at all come across a late war taskforce that i would attack with-out waiting untill more favourable conditions-- and if that meant letting it go by then so be it!! (tell the brass hats back at base we had engine trouble if they insist on an explanation!)
i'd get some distance from the task froce - radio it in-- let the Lutwaffe have a go at the thing if it's so dang important !! :huh:

only kidding about Red--but you see what i mean!


i've been playing the career mode --
( this is the first time i've had a go with any of the single missions other than a bit of testing with Col's brit subs)
--now since the game came out and i still haven't gotten within range of a campaign taskforce in time to have a go at it!!
so these sorts of staged and extremely rare ecounters don't seem to be a good way to test stuff IMO

tho i can see your point :up: :yep:

but for me it's the mid war routine of finding and attacking convoys that is the heart of the game- and surviving the "war" as a role play attitude!!
so that's where i concentrate my testing and tweaks


i never do get trouble from pin point DC drops so it's not much use comparing results it has to be pondered-- :hmm:

if i had been unable to shake that last DD and it looked like i wasn't going to be able to shake him then that would have been uber-- :yep:

but if the DC drops actually did create a period of time where the DD sensor were blind (then i would have been able to escape no doubtabout it-- so that's a huge uber issue for the DD's

[CB..]

:D here's a thought (oh no not another one lol!)

what if it was possible to add the decoy sensor effects to the depth charges---?

this would work very well especailly with two or more DD's around -- it wouldn't "blind" them during DC attacks of course but it would confuse them a lot--for brief periods of time giving similar results

a bit of an advanced job -but for the "deep file" experts perhaps a worthy cause?

[Marhkimov]

The last thing we need is another never-ending thread such as the 8km visibility thread...

Sorry guys, that didn't come out the way I intended.

I just meant to say our long term goal should be to make a real mod, even though everyone is still in the middle of experimentation. If you will remember what happened in the 8km mod thread, people were testing and testing and testing, yet almost no real mod came of it. Every once in a while someone would release a beta test mod, but that's it... Then the thread just kind of died down, and no one ever came back.

So I'm really only saying one thing... Lets make a useful mod before the topic becomes redundant, ok?

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. I am really looking forward to this myself, so I hope you guys keep up the good work.


Marhkimov.

[CB..]

Sorry guys, that didn't come out the way I intended.

I just meant to say our long term goal should be to make a real mod, even though everyone is still in the middle of experimentation. If you will remember what happened in the 8km mod thread, people were testing and testing and testing, yet almost no real mod came of it. Every once in a while someone would release a beta test mod, but that's it... Then the thread just kind of died down, and no one ever came back.

So I'm really only saying one thing... Lets make a useful mod before the topic becomes redundant, ok?

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. I am really looking forward to this myself, so I hope you guys keep up the good work.


Marhkimov.

cheers Marhkimov :up:

i think the thing that's driving us all crazy here is that not all of us are having the same problems---

some folks keep getting uber DD's that nail you on the first pass- blam dead--
and others have exactly the opposite problem -- useless DD's that couldn't find a whale in a swimming pool if it was sing the national anthem AND waving a flag at the same time lol!!

and just to really confuse matter even further (as if that's wasn't enought !)
some folks are getting both at the same time and or alternatively at random--

i dunno how the heck a mod CAN be made


perhaps a POLL is in order? find out how many folks have which problem
and then maybe produce two mods for a bit of insightfull testing

one for the uber DD's one for the useless DD's

i know Guoldjg is hoping to produce a full on mod---

but i think the rest of as more just trying to get some decent gameplay for our own game (not being sure that any changes will work on other peoples set ups) bit mad really hence the frustration showing requently! (and my spelling going down the pan :-j )

[gouldjg]

Good idea but way beyond me at the moment :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I kind of knew people would start feeling bad as though they might be wasting time comming up with innovations and ideas because of the statement about making this a long thread.

Guys

I don't think Marhkimov meant any real ill feelings by that post and he probably just wanted to help us out and get our perspectives back on track. I know I need reminding now and again as I tend to do too many things at once and go like a bull at the gate.


Say as much as you wish and don't feel guilty about trying something completely new. What may seem silly now is usually a big clue for future work.

At the moment, I am completely removing all references to crew ratings in the campaighn and mission files.

I am getting rid of crew totally. If this does not work, I am setting them all to elite. In fact I am setting everything to elite.

I feel so strong on the hunch that sensitivity along with some other issues are affected by crew rating, that I am getting rid of that possibility to test.

I am going to add all sensors to the sim.cfg and duplicate the actives with the sonar settings and the passives with the hydro settings.

I am looking at the sub sensor .cfg and notice a few things here that makes the sub crew behave better than the ai ship crews. E.g. waves factors etc etc.

I am also curious about decay time. Is this just a map decay or do you think it could be similar to the lose contact.

Anyway, I am working on long shots and hunches here but if it fails, I have a backup of my last tweaks that seem to improve things.

CB, When you got your results with hydro, what ranges were set in the sensors and also what range was you detected at max.

You see I had this also but never removed anything from the cfg, I just increased the ranges of all passives.

I would rather understand what was affecting the range than by just simply removing the factor that could have been effecting this.

There may be others i.e. noise factors etc but this can be looked at later.

I would almost bet money that should we be able to set all sensitivity to the same, we would notice that the levels remain no matter what crewrating is. It is what's what's that we need to understand. I think the Dev team really went to work on this with massive plans but time forced them to overlook the minor details.

Now remember when in early versions of the game, we could simply out flank falling dd's. Did the devs tweak the fall speed or something else?

[Marhkimov]

Yeah CB, that is exactly the problem that I am seeing... How the heck are you guys gonna make a mod out of all this?


I'm just worried that once you guys finally manage to crack the DD problems, you won't make a mod... Or you won't be able to make a mod. That would leave me and everyone else high and dry.

You see, I wish I could join in on the testing and modding myself, but I'm just not strong enough to understand passive sonar, active sonar, angles and ranges and hydrophones and radar, and on and on and on... It's just kind of overwhelming to me... But I acknowledge the problem with the DD's in my own copy of SH3 and I am hoping you guys get it all sorted out.


Anyways... You guys should get back to work... I have my own mods to tend to. :up:


Marhkimov.

[Ducimus]

Well ive been trying to recreate some of what you folks have been doing for the sake of my own enjoyment of the game. To that end i finally figured out how to use the SH3 mini tweaker. Pretty nifty program.

Here's what ive changed so far.

1.) Made it JSGME compatiable for easy rollbacks

2.) Went through the improved convoy's mod and replaced every instance of crew rating 1 and 2, to crew rating 3. Leavign the 4's alone. If this doesnt produce results ill bump them all to 4, if that doesnt work ill remark them all out.


3.) Edited Sim.cfg to the following:
[Hydrophone]
Detection time=0.1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.03 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.0 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.00 ;[>=0]

Im going to reduce the speed factor to like 5 or 7 later on. Whats the 0.03 sensitivity do by the way? What happends if i 0 that out?


4. Edited AI Sensors.dat:
- increased hydrophones to 30,000 max distance
- Increased active sonar by 200 meters and gave it a 170 min distance


5. Edited depthcharges. sim /zon
- Reduced acurracy to 25 meters
- Played with radius, from 20 to 15 back to 20.

6. Edited Contacts.cfg
(cause its alot of fun seen an active map :rotfl: )

7. Edited sub files to obtain deeper depths.. 300, 350, 400, 450 meters.

Collectively what can you say all these changes will do?

Just playing with the U505 mission, very hard to tell if its making any difference. I havent had time to try a war patrol yet. Sometimes they pick me up right away, other times they don't.

One intresting thing is right after i sent my torpedo spead out the the carrier, i dunked the periscope, left the engine at 2 knotts (i forget to stop them), and advanced time compression whilst in the conning tower to so i can watch the stopwatch.

Dropping time compression back to 1 about 20 seconds before torpedo impact, i heard , "were getting pinged sir". This was the escort that was the closest and had since gone away AT LEAST 2000 meters, more like 4000. So he obviously came back. I think he either heard my engines, or heard the sound of the torpedo's, im not sure.


On pin point accuracy.

One thing ive noticed is that the deeper you are the less accurate their going to be. In the past, even at 300 depth, with 0 min distance on the active sonar, they'd still drop them in the pickle barrel. With a 150 min distance, the hedgehogs are still make me cry. If your in external camera and see them hit the water, you have JUST enough time at 300 meters to go ahead flank and full rudder - and even then its a crap shoot. Anyway the depth charges going at 300 meters at 2 knots always fall astern. At a 15 explosion radius, is not much fun. Since i like going deep, im going to bump the radius back to 20 and see how it turns out. An intresting notion of this is it REALLY makes getting detected at shallower depths ALOT more hair raising.. going deep is the only thing that will save me - and that i like.

Ill run a patrol as soon as im able. IF anyone else can suggest other changes to my setup, please do. The day i surfaced 4000 meters abeam of a convoy in broad daylight in 1943 and seeing the piss poor escort reaction, i knew this had to change. As it is, as i think CB said, its a mighty pretty screensaver.

[gouldjg]

Hi Ducimus

1. Try setting your hedgehogs to 300 depth and 300 precision. You get some duds now so this should even the field if we ever set them to be deadly as in real life. I do not know if there were many duds but I like it :-j

If you want, have a go at 400 * 300 just to cover the depth.

Thats the one Good contribution I can make :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

2. I am totally removing all crew ratings at the moment but was thinking of doing as you are doing if this first plan does not work very well. I really do think the different crew ratings affect the game sensors in a bad way. Untill we get a hex expert opinion on the sensitivity numbers, we are stuck to speculation at the moment. I would prefer there to be only minor differences but if the air cfg is anything to go bye, I suspect penalties between to be too severe.

3. I also set the main Hydrophone setting to 30 km and then tripled all passives. If you go back a page or two, you will see my settings as far as the sim.cfg was concerned. Let me tell you, all though it was well exagerated, it felt Very cool on the happy times mission when I was detected as soon as I went above one third. Rememebr that you have to be below 10mtre depth also for the DD to register. I am just after getting better more relaistic ranges for this and then I am happy. I do know that the silent running works, even when the uber hydro are close bye.

4. Remember to also remove or change crew in the mission files as well as the campaign.

Side notes

I notice that the sub sensor cfg has different values MAYBE to give advantages to the player who knows.

Maybe some of these values should be given to the ai sensors i.e.

;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


On the subject of pin point.

I have not really had any specific uber pin points since setting min ranges to 200. Remember folks, even though I have set min range to 200, the wave factor and noise factors may be shortening that number to be more like 50 depending on which piece of equipment is hunting you. I think this is what is happening on that subject and it is just a matter of tweak and testing now.

The down side is that should we play with the wave or noise too much, one extreme effects the other. So if i set the actives to not be so affected by waves etc, they will become better at the min distance cos the nullifying is removed.


On the subject of Mods

For everyones interest. There will be no major mod from me untill things are fully figured out. I will eventually post my version of the game settings but I am pretty sure it will then go into the usual debates about realism and not please everyone. I am no longer sure I want to handle the flak on such a issue.

At the moment, I am speculating on everything and am pretty sure the others feel the same. If we then get a common ground (huh that will be the day), then we can start to think about a major AI mod.

I would rather approach this as we are doing at the moment. Test a theory and post a speculation, idea etc.

When we all start to fully understand the rules, well then it is time for someone to do the super long thread on all results so that people can make their own changes or quite simply posting things in small packs i.e. hydrophone pack, pin point pack, etc etc.

I just wish we looked at this earlier when there was a strong RUB team. I also wish other mod developers would get on board with this and share their opinions.

Wish Wish Wish, thats all i seem to be doing.

[HEMISENT]

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.

[CB..]

CB, When you got your results with hydro, what ranges were set in the sensors and also what range was you detected at max.

?

what i found was i could increase the max range of the hydrophones
to any amount what so-ever
i went right out to 40,000 metres max range--

and this actually did nothing absolutely nothing--nada lol!
//
i really wonder somewhat whether changes to the AI_sensor.dat actually have any effect at all---or are so influenced by other factors that the end result can be the same--
///

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

run a test - note your detection ranges approximaitlley

then remove the entrys altogether

and run the test--note the ranges

the most powerfull message from Col's discovery that the game doesn't need the sim.cfg entrys to run - is that some where there are a set of "game default" settings for the sensors---

i need to say extremely loudly here

I HAVE NEVER EVER EXPERIENCED A PIN POINT DC DROP FROM ANY DD THAT COULDN'T BE EXPLAINED BY PURE BAD LUCK-- OR ME "WALKING INTO IT"

the reason i say that so "loudly" (and my apologies for doing so) is that it happens so rarely as to be quite spooky to wonder what the odds are that at least every now and again a DD would by the law of averages land one smack on the nose-- yet it allmost never happens--

you see for me and the other folks whose DD's are primarily useless 90% of the time--it isn't going to make any difference at all if the min height is this or the max range is that or the angle of the other is anything at all--the DD's are useless!!!

and so far the only fix for this-- that consistently works time after time-- is Col's find regarding the sim.cfg--ie removing some of the hydrophone entrys completely and using those ones you don't remove intelligently to
balance the results out "to taste" as it were--



folks keep asking me to test this and that on the basis that their DD's are uber-- and they want to stop the pin point drops---

there's no point asking me!!!
as stock my DD's are blind as a bat---you feel honoured if they drop dc's at all LOL--never mind if they drop one in the same hemisphere as you!!!



one or two other folks are in the same situation---

Col's work seems to solve this problem at least to my satisfaction ( and i am a fussy b*gger on the QT)

we have TWO problems whe viewed as a whole

some folks have

useless DD syndrome--

others have

uber DD syndrome--


what solves one will just make the other worse---

what the heck am i going on about lol--- :o :o :oops: :up: i 'm going for a bit of a lie down--