Bit of help

[GreyOctober]

Hallo Herr Kaleuns!

Happy to be here. Im quite new to the genre as ive been playing SHIII for 2 weeks now...so you can say im a noob (DONT SAY IT! ;) ). Well since i got it, i started installing mods found on subsim, and felt pretty happy with Rub1.45 as i felt it made it uber realistic. Just found out that i can go to the next level, meaning NYGM and GW. You see, im a realism guy, and i need every detail to be historically accurate and the representation of various sistems correct. Ive been reading the mod forums for hours and i still have some things that need to be clariffied. So far i made a quick list of must haves...NYGM, GW and bordinstrumente (have a few more but dont present a problem).

Anyway, the BIG question is: WHICH IS THE BEST to have (realism wise). I understand that you can merge both GW and NYGM (how?). Note: i fully read the readmes of both and understood how each one of the affects the gameplay.

Which mod to enable first (is it best to mod NYGM with GW or vice-versa?).

Are there any other adjustements that have to be made manually in order to get the two working?

Unified campaign. The readme in the forums confused me further as it presented me with 3 or 4 download versions (which one?)

Any other recommended mods to go with NYGM+GW?

Ah damn...i read what i said above and i realised i didnt make much sense :roll:

Almost forgot: where can i find tips about torpedo attacks (positioning, attacking various spots on the ship etc).

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help me out. Great comunity btw :up:

GreyOctober

[JCWolf]

I'll try to clarify a litlle a bit bro...


There are in this moment 3 major mods bro, Grey Wolves, NYGM, IUB...

You've got to chose from one of those...

Example:

You chose Grey Wolves (GW)
Download topic
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=50034

After you enable the mod You have to download the recent patch update from GW...
Here
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=51468

Then lets say you whant the merged campaign from NYGM, you download the Unified Campaigne GW
Here
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=50377

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

This was the main 3 mods for operating the GW version with the
NYGM Campaigne included, the rest is a question of adding optional mods that are usually marked with the name off the modd they are for...but that will be your choice...mate :up:

hope this helps somehow bro... :rock:

[GreyOctober]

Much appreciated JC. I have a clearer picture now. Thank you sir :up:

GreyOctober

[Beery]

Don't give up on RUb. It's still a major mod. I wouldn't say there were three major mods. There are at least four. RUb is as much a player as any of the others, and it still has features that the others don't have (RUb has some realistic but unpopular mods that I'm fairly sure the others will be missing because RUb is not geared for casual players - i.e. the deck gun reload time and the fatigue mod). RUb, when used in conjunction with SH3 Commander) also has its own milk cow mod, less flashy than the others but just as realistic in terms of its effect, and it's easier to use, and without the problems inherent in placing an invisible port at sea (which is how the other milk cow mod works). This is, in my opinion, the biggest drawback of all other mods that incorporate milk cows.

Also, I've found that some other mods have tended to go for style over substance to some extent, with excitement being a major consideration at the expense of true realism. RUb also has a lot of historical campaigns in it - boats get sent to the US coast in early-mid 1942, the invasion of Norway is featured, etc., etc. We also spent a lot of time balancing the game so that it's more realistic in terms of survivability and balancing the probabilities of being sunk by ships/aircraft, etc. I doubt that any other mod has given much thought to these realism aspects of the game. There's nothing outdated in it, and I reckon it's still the most realistic mod (but then I would, wouldn't I, since I'm the guy who assembled it, LOL). Also, a new version is in the works, with the most advanced version of the Kiel Canal mod (I just added more functionality to it last night), and other updates.

[Cdre Gibs]

RUB has been surpassed by NYGM for reaslisim and GW for content plus a middle road realisim approuch. Since NYGM is built upon and improved RUB mod, RUB its no longer needed. If your after realisim then the install would be like this:

SHIII
1.4b Patch
GW
GW 1.1 patch
NYGM
NYGM Unified GW campain.
DG-AA_Destabilized_v1.02

That way the last bits added are the realisim bits so therefor will NOT be overwritten and will give you what your after. If you just install rub only then you would be doing youself a major disservice. Both NYGM and GW address real time historical issues as far as ships subs planes missions plus go a lot further with fixing the DG and the Flack than RUB ever did. Infact the GW 1.1 patch again fine tunes the above.

[Beery]

Yeah, well that's Cdre Gibs for you :roll: . There's one talented modder whose work has been wasted or lost because he's unwilling to share his knowledge or to join with the wider modding community. We've learned to take his 'advice' with a pinch of salt because it comes at the cost of his ego and personal bias (both of which are considerable). ;) Personally, I have grave doubts whether he knows what he's talking about, as I'd be very surprised if he's actually ever used RUb given his long-standing prejudice against it.

As for realism, there's no 'middle of the road'. It's as realistic as possible or it's not. If GW goes for less realism, it can't be for hardcore realism fans - QED. I'm not saying it's not a great mod. I'm just saying that it's built for a wider audience, and the originator of this thread wrote that he is fully committed to realism.

As for NYGM, while it's clearly a great mod that focuses strongly on realism, it uses the milk cow mod, and in my opinion the milk cow mod makes NYGM lack in both realism and playability. While the milk cow mod was a good idea, it has never been fully completed, and I think it causes more problems than it solves: because of its unfinished state it is essentially a 'chrome' mod - it gives players the bells and whistles that go along with milk cows, but it causes the player to jump through hoops to get to them, and it causes gameplay issues such as forcing the player to undergo massive and unrealistic repairs while at sea. In my opinion, the Milk Cow mod is an unfinished mod. In fact it cannot be finished, and as such I think it inserts a deep flaw into any mod that uses it. In my opinion SH3 Commander's Milk Cow mod works better, and within the abilities of the game, albeit with less 'chrome'.

If NYGM existed without the Milk Cow mod it would be as realistic, or more so, than RUb (the only other questionable content being the fatigue model - but any fatigue model is always going to be abstract to a great extent due to the limitations of the model we have to work with).

I'd say that, based on what GreyOctober has written, the only choice he has is between RUb and NYGM. If he's after realism, either of those will meet his requirements. It's probably just a question of whether he can deal with the negatives of the Milk Cow mod, and whether he can deal with the more traditional method of crew management (where you need to micromanage the crew) that NYGM features. If he can, and if NYGM really has a realistic deck gun (as it advertises), he may indeed find that NYGM is the mod for him.

Sure, RUb has its negatives too - NYGM's realistic ship sinking feature is clearly superior to that of RUb. The question is, which mod's negative points are more important? For me, I just wouldn't be able to deal with the problems of the Milk Cow mod, and I must admit to a certain bias in terms of my fatigue model, which I think takes a flawed system and perfects it in terms of gameplay. These are my reasons for choosing RUb (even though it's gone 5 months without an upgrade), and why I haven't gone over to NYGM.

[Cdre Gibs]

No skin off my nose, I dont have anything to do with either mod, You have just dumped on Der Teddy Bar and Kpt Lehmann. Nice 1, I see your as charming as ever...not.

The fact is I only told him the truth, if you cant handle the truth, thats not my problem. RUB has been made redundant ATM. Now if you some how manage to surpass NYGM plus GW, then you can brag till the cows come home claiming that your the "Subsim Mod Master". Till then I'd suggest you try a few of the other mods ppl have done and be better informed before opening your mouth and looking rather stupid. Hell you may even LIKE them (heaven forbid) or even better yet HELP them improve on their work (you know that bit about all modders helping each other, I believe you said that), instead of acting the nob.

[Sailor Steve]

Let's see: I use the map section from RUB, the NYGM ship sinking and the Campaign files from GW (since that's the only place I can get Rubini's final harbor traffic mod). Other than that, I have a large file of favorite mods I always install one at a time, so I can have my perfect game.

So there. :P

[GreyOctober]

Gentlemen, .....please... lets not make this thread "yet another locked one", shall we?

Ok lets see, Gibbs. Youre saying that i should install GW (patched) and then mod it with NYGM... .i hope i understood corectlly. Sorry for asking so many questions but im out of HDD space to backup in case i go wrong and installing SHIII again....uuuuhhhh :-? thats a nono
And what does DG-AA_Destabilized_v1.02 do?

Thank you all.

GreyOctober

[Cdre Gibs]

Yep, install in that order. The GW mod being mostly eye candy will be overwritten by NYGM which is mostly realisim. That way you can have your cake and eat it :)

The DG-AA_Destabilized_v1.02 is an update that was included in the GW 1.1 patch but the NYGM will overwrite it. Its basicaly the GW and NYGM DG/AA settings combined.

[Sailor Steve]

And what does DG-AA_Destabilized_v1.02 do?

It makes the Deck Gun and Anti-Aircraft Guns more realistic...that is, less accurate.

[Stiebler]

Beery said that he doesn't like NYGM's milk cows mod (which I implemented, incidentally).

That is fair enough, but I would like to point up that no one is forced to use the milk cows (U-tankers) in NYGM, which is compatible with SH3Commander. So anyone who uses NYGM can take all the acknowledged benefits without the U-tankers, and use Beery's solution.

Further, the next release of NYGM will contain an optional extra mod (SH3Patrol) that fixes some of the problems of implementation of use of the U-tankers. In particular, it fixes the 'NULL' patrol problem, as well as setting a 1-2 day docking time. It will not, however, fix the full repair problem, nor the full torpedo load-out problem. As Beery says, hard-coding in SH3 means that there can never be a perfect solution. However, the answer to some of the perceived difficulties lies in the player's own hands: if you don't like a full torpedo load-out at the U-tanker base, don't shoot off so many when you leave the U-tanker!

Stiebler.

[Beery]

Beery said that he doesn't like NYGM's milk cows mod (which I implemented, incidentally).

It's not your work that I don't like. You did all that could be done, and the effort to make a milk cow mod was worthy. The problem is that, as I said before, the game's lack of flexibility in this regard means that the Milk Cow mod can never work seamlessly within the game, and in my opinion, the drawbacks caused by the game's inflexibility are not worth the advantages the mod brings. When a player uses the Milk Cows his boat is automatically repaired - that means that in effect the milk cows are a virtual dry dock in the middle of the ocean and they can cause a player to be stuck for days, even weeks in mid-ocean while repairs are completed. I think that's a big negative in terms of realism. If any other mod caused similar drawbacks it would be consigned to the garbage heap of mods that were tried but failed, but simply because Milk Cows are a sort of holy grail similar to the idea of wolfpacks, this Milk Cow mod has survived.

In short, you did a great job, but the game simply won't let this feature work properly.

[GreyOctober]

OK everything clear now...thanks a bunch gents.

NOW...ive taken the time to review the longish list of mods on top of the forums and found some intereting ones. There is one in particular that caught my eye...the battery fix mod. Anyone tried it? Is it working with GW+MYGM. I assume i has no negative effect on the setup but doesnt hurt to ask.

Any other recommendations are very welcomed.

Calm seas and fair winds,

G.O.

[Cdre Gibs]

The Battery Fix is included in the GW mod, as far as I'm aware its not overwritten by NYGM since its for the Type XXI (may include others, not sure). But if you wanted to be sure (just in case NYGM did touch the sub files) then you could install the Battery Fix last.

[VonHelsching]

OK everything clear now...thanks a bunch gents.

NOW...ive taken the time to review the longish list of mods on top of the forums and found some intereting ones. There is one in particular that caught my eye...the battery fix mod. Anyone tried it? Is it working with GW+MYGM. I assume i has no negative effect on the setup but doesnt hurt to ask.

Any other recommendations are very welcomed.

Calm seas and fair winds,

G.O.

Let me assume that you are referring to the Real Battery Life (Advanced NASA Battery Fix), which covers the batteries of all subs (plus it fixes the XXI battery bug)

I have released a version for GW, but I do not know with what .sim files you end up after a GW + NYGM combination. My best guess is that any difference would not be noticeable, Mainly very minor surface range differences. The battery would work fine in any case.

Check:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=49412

But, if you mean the XXI Battery fix, I do not know if you are ever going to see one (XXI, that is), since NYGM is a realism oriented mod and probably you are "allowed" to use the XXI only for one or two patrols just berofe the war's end. (like in RuB).

[Cdre Gibs]

:lol: speak of the devil an look who pops up. Von is the man best suited to answering your question. I strongly suggest you address any futher quires to him and read his posted link.

Thx Von ;)

[VonHelsching]

We posted at the same instance!

You're welcome Cdre :up:

[Vassili]

Almost forgot: where can i find tips about torpedo attacks (positioning, attacking various spots on the ship etc).


You should try Wazoo's Manual Charting & Targeting Tutorial (http://www.paulwasserman.net/SHIII/) if you haven't already done so... It helped me a lot :)

[GreyOctober]

Hello again captains!

Ive been tinkering with the mods latelly to achieve my goal of realism (plus eyecandy to my taste) and i think i found the solution. I stumbled on another problem however which i will describe further down.

First off, this is my current setup (in the order installed) using JGME

1) 1.4b patch
2) GW + 1.1 patch (mergend in one directory THEN enabled)
3) NYGM 1.0.3 (dir removal is made from within JGME MODS folder and THEN enabled)
- >removed dir Crew
- >removed dir Env
- >removed dir Markings
- >removed dir Menu
- >removed dir Misc
- >removed dir Movies
- >removed dir Sound
- >removed dir Textures
4) EUC GW+NYGM (dir removal is made from within JGME MODS folder and THEN enabled):
- >removed dir Env
- >removed dir Markings
- >removed dir Menu
- >removed dir Misc
- >removed dir Sound
- >removed dir Textures
5) NYGM SOUNDS (took delayed sounds from NYGM and anabled them last for control)


I removed those dirs from NYGM and EUC because i wanted to keep the eyecandy from GW. So far no glitches and everything runs honky dory (tested 15 minutes though so im not quite sure). Can anyone please tell me if in my current setup, NYGM DAMMAGE FILES are retained?

I ran SH Commander and set up for a single mission. SHC settings are as per NYGM recommended ones:

• Use fatigue model (unchecked)
• Adjust water density (unchecked)
• Max 88mm deck gun reload time = 15 seconds
• Max 105mm deck gun reload time = 15 seconds

Further checked ALL in career options minus "set numeber of days spent in base) and checked "Use realistic crew configurations"

NOW THE PROBLEM: I set up SHC for a single mission, selected VIIB, 1940, and fired SHIII. When selecting ANY single mission ingame i get the message:
"TOO MANY SAILORS. GO TO BARRACKS"

Im stuck...dont know what to do to fix it. There was a thread on this forum on the same problem and the only solution suggested was to reinstall SHC (which i did)..and besides that was on a RUB installation.

Any help greatlly appreciated.

Calm seas and fair winds,

GreyOctober

[Cdre Gibs]

Ok, thats because NYGM has reduce some of the subs crew numbers.
In your CFG folder you will find a few files like this :

crew_config_II_3.cfg
crew_config_VII_3.cfg
crew_config_IX_3.cfg
crew_config_XXI_3.cfg

Those files are the cew your boat will use in either SP maps or MP maps, plus when you start a campaign. However in campaign mode you have the ability to swap the crew around and fix the to many crew msg. In SP and MP you dont. The solution is easy. Start campaign mode, choose the sub u want to use, arrange the crew how you like, launch th mission. Save the game, exit. Goto your Doc's folder SH3 and into your career folder, inside that you will see a cew file called - Crew_Career_00.cfg. IF you have chosen a Type IIA/D boat copy all the info inside the Crew_Career_00.cfg file into the crew_config_II_3.cfg file. Same deal if you chose a Type IIVB/C then it gos into the crew_config_VII_3.cfg. Again if you chose a Type IXB/C then its the crew_config_IX_3.cfg type files you copy and paste into.

Now you will be able to play an SP game with no probs. However you now will have that crew every time you start a new career but you can always goto the barracks and swap the crew around.

IF like myself you mainly play MP games, then you can work up an experianced crew in campaign mode for each type of boat and save those into the

crew_config_II_3.cfg
crew_config_VII_3.cfg
crew_config_IX_3.cfg
crew_config_XXI_3.cfg

files so that when online you dont have a crew that are totaly bloody useless.

[GreyOctober]

Thanks Gibbs! BUT, doesnt that mean that i cant play single missions with anything other than the starting subs? I wont be able to play a singlemission with a type IX sub because i cant start a campaign with a IX :-?

And how is SHC related to this? because i didnt have the problem BEFORE running SHC. Furthermore, reverting SHC back has no effect and im still getting that message. :damn:

Thanks

G.O.

EDIT: no longer bilge rat. im "upper class" now! :D

[Observer]

The Battery Fix is included in the GW mod, as far as I'm aware its not overwritten by NYGM since its for the Type XXI (may include others, not sure). But if you wanted to be sure (just in case NYGM did touch the sub files) then you could install the Battery Fix last.

I probably should have pointed this out long ago, but the battery range "fix" mod is not realistic. There is no conversion error by the developers in the code. There is a fundamentally bad (extremely bad in fact) battery charging and discharging model built by the developers that I have not yet been able to circumvent. I'm still waiting on the answers to some questions from the developers in this area. Probably nothing can be done, so it will be handled in another way in the next version of NYGM Tonnage War.

The battery "fix" is not realistic for the following reasons:

1. It artificially reduces the battery charge to result in the "battery empty" message at the appropriate distance. First of all, a battery is never empty unless someone dumps the sulfuric acid and lead/lead oxide plates out of the individual cells. The battery is really fully discharged. Secondly when that message is displayed the battery is not really fully discharged. It actually has some charge left (~3-5%). This is reflected by the continued forward motion at about 1 knot and by simple inspection of the battery voltage meter. I have tested this and traveled for over 3 days at 1 knot on the electric motors after the battery empty message.

2. The developers did not choose to model house loads. When the battery is fully discharged, internal loads (such as the lights) should dim or become unusable as the battery continues to discharge (remembering the largest load by far is the electrical propulsion motors). For lead acid batteries battery state is measured by the number of amp-hours discharged, individual cell voltages (to prevent a cell reversal) and battery specific gravities with specific gravity being the most accurate method of measuring battery charge.

3. The battery range "fix" also incorrectly reduces the time required to charge the battery by the amount of time proportional to the adjusted range. For example if the battery charge time with the submerged range set to 80 nm is 6 hours, when the submerged range is reduced to 64 nm, the battery charge time will be reduced to 4 hrs 48 min. This give the uboat an unfair advantage especially when not using the snorkel.

4. At extremely low speeds the LI is still able to maintain perfect depth control. This is extremely difficult and unrealistic.

When you get the message that there is only 10% charge left in the battery, it is in fact fully discharged for the purpose of using the electric motors.

[Observer]

If NYGM existed without the Milk Cow mod it would be as realistic, or more so, than RUb (the only other questionable content being the fatigue model - but any fatigue model is always going to be abstract to a great extent due to the limitations of the model we have to work with).

Sure, RUb has its negatives too - NYGM's realistic ship sinking feature is clearly superior to that of RUb. The question is, which mod's negative points are more important? For me, I just wouldn't be able to deal with the problems of the Milk Cow mod, and I must admit to a certain bias in terms of my fatigue model, which I think takes a flawed system and perfects it in terms of gameplay. These are my reasons for choosing RUb (even though it's gone 5 months without an upgrade), and why I haven't gone over to NYGM.

Have you tried the NYGM Crew Management Mod? I would like to challenge you to do so, for a few patrols, as you have challenged others for the RUb fatigue model. I would also like to point out that it is much more than just fatigue. It is a holistic crew management model that takes into account the positive and negative effects of fatigue. As with the RUb model however, it may not be to everyone's taste, but it is certainly as realistic as possible within the limitations of the SH3 code base.

[Beery]

Have you tried the NYGM Crew Management Mod? I would like to challenge you to do so, for a few patrols, as you have challenged others for the RUb fatigue model...

I'm seriously considering it. I've examined in detail the information for the mod, and there are a lot of things I like about it, but the one thing that really keeps me from using it is the Milk Cow mod. If it was only fatigue I'd use it without thinking twice, since if I don't like the fatigue I can use SH3 Commander to reinstate RUb's fatigue. The Milk Cow mod is the big stumbling block for me (well, that and just plain old lazyness), for reasons I've stated earlier. I guess I could just take out the Milk Cow parts for my own use, but it's been so long since I messed with the game that I fear I'd be lost. Anyway, like I said I'm considering it.

[GreyOctober]

bump

[Observer]

Have you tried the NYGM Crew Management Mod? I would like to challenge you to do so, for a few patrols, as you have challenged others for the RUb fatigue model...

I'm seriously considering it. I've examined in detail the information for the mod, and there are a lot of things I like about it, but the one thing that really keeps me from using it is the Milk Cow mod. If it was only fatigue I'd use it without thinking twice, since if I don't like the fatigue I can use SH3 Commander to reinstate RUb's fatigue. The Milk Cow mod is the big stumbling block for me (well, that and just plain old lazyness), for reasons I've stated earlier. I guess I could just take out the Milk Cow parts for my own use, but it's been so long since I messed with the game that I fear I'd be lost. Anyway, like I said I'm considering it.

As others have pointed out, you don't have to use the milk cow mod. It is pretty unobtrusive, and can be compensated for through the older range extension method. Just a thought...

[Cdre Gibs]

BUT, doesnt that mean that i cant play single missions with anything other than the starting subs? I wont be able to play a singlemission with a type IX sub because i cant start a campaign with a IX :-?

I'm pretty sure you can pick a period in time (say after 1942) in a campaign career start where at the Flt you choose a Type IX is available, if you cant afford it (due to renown) then a few patrols later you should be able to do so. Then do a few more patrols in the Type IX to sort out your crew to how you want them and save as stated above.

And how is SHC related to this? because i didnt have the problem BEFORE running SHC. Furthermore, reverting SHC back has no effect and im still getting that message. :damn:

Since I dont have SH3C I have no bloody idea, sorry. All I know is that those files I stated are the normal crew set up files for all the sub types. If SH3C has those same files its self then I'd say its a good bet its overwritten them and somehow the rollback didn't take properly, but in truth its something SJones would be the better person to ask. I must admit tho, I dont see a need to run SH3C if all you want to play are the SP missions, but thats just me. It certainly be of no use for MP, as it would change to many bits to enable you to play online.

[VonHelsching]

I probably should have pointed this out long ago, but the battery range "fix" mod is not realistic. There is no conversion error by the developers in the code.

It's a pitty you didn't contribute to the Battery Fix thread, but I have to disagree with you regarding the developers error. If we exclude the XXI, which is mal-modeled, IIRC the offset error was "systematic" ie repeating for all boats, therefore an error.

E.g. for the Typ IID:

The underwater ranges in the .sim files are supposed to be nautical miles, but they're not. They are what I called "UBI-pseudo-units". The SH3 engine mutiplies them with a factor (1,8 IIRC) to convert them "again" to nautical miles.So the underwater range of the IID in the .sim files (in "ubi-pseudo-units") is converted in my fix to 36 or 37. The game muliplies this by 1,6 and you now get ~57 (reference range is 56). Bear also in mind that the SH3 ruler measures in kilometers.

Sadly I have thrown away all my handwritten notes from this work and cannot give you references for the measured distances with the ruler; but believe me I have triple-checked the results, and they were OK.

The battery "fix" is not realistic for the following reasons:
1. It artificially reduces the battery charge to result in the "battery empty" message at the appropriate distance. First of all, a battery is never empty unless someone dumps the sulfuric acid and lead/lead oxide plates out of the individual cells. The battery is really fully discharged. Secondly when that message is displayed the battery is not really fully discharged. It actually has some charge left (~3-5%). This is reflected by the continued forward motion at about 1 knot and by simple inspection of the battery voltage meter. I have tested this and traveled for over 3 days at 1 knot on the electric motors after the battery empty message.

I understand about the "drifting" with 1 knot. But this not useful speed to go anywere or evade DDs. Also you would die from CO2 before the three days...

I agree with you that the battery model (charging / discharging) was not very detailed. But you know, these guys (developers) have many more importand part of the game to fix (the battery model is the 0,1% of the game) :-j


2. The developers did not choose to model house loads. When the battery is fully discharged, internal loads (such as the lights) should dim or become unusable as the battery continues to discharge (remembering the largest load by far is the electrical propulsion motors). For lead acid batteries battery state is measured by the number of amp-hours discharged, individual cell voltages (to prevent a cell reversal) and battery specific gravities with specific gravity being the most accurate method of measuring battery charge.

I totally agree. It would add to the excitement to have your lights dimmed etc. But this does not make my modlet / fix less realistic. Probably you mean the current battery modelling is not realistic.


3. The battery range "fix" also incorrectly reduces the time required to charge the battery by the amount of time proportional to the adjusted range. For example if the battery charge time with the submerged range set to 80 nm is 6 hours, when the submerged range is reduced to 64 nm, the battery charge time will be reduced to 4 hrs 48 min. This give the uboat an unfair advantage especially when not using the snorkel.

Yes, I agree. This would involve fiddling with the engine settings as it was done with the temporary battery fix of the XXI. The marginal utility of my free time prevented me from diving deeper on this. I hope you have more luck on this.:up:


4. At extremely low speeds the LI is still able to maintain perfect depth control. This is extremely difficult and unrealistic.

This sounds good (at least as an option; not for everyone), but has nothing to do with the batter.


When you get the message that there is only 10% charge left in the battery, it is in fact fully discharged for the purpose of using the electric motors.

With 10% you can still go with 1,5 - 2,5 knots IIRC. Not very useful speed, but at least it is something. IMHO, the correct level for not using your e-motors is the battery Empty.

Impressive work you did for the tonnage of the ships! :up:

[Observer]

I probably should have pointed this out long ago, but the battery range "fix" mod is not realistic. There is no conversion error by the developers in the code.

It's a pitty you didn't contribute to the Battery Fix thread, but I have to disagree with you regarding the developers error. If we exclude the XXI, which is mal-modeled, IIRC the offset error was "systematic" ie repeating for all boats, therefore an error.

I did not realize it was a problem until much later into the battery fix issue. In fact I never even knew this was a problem until this issue was raised because I have never operated the SH3 uboats in this area. After that, I had to test the issue to my satisfaction, and then model an appropriate method to evaluate the correct battery discharge and charge rates, within the limits of available data. Changing the few available configuration entries left me with more questions than answers at which point I tried to seek answers from the developers. Unfortunately I haven't been very successful in this respect.

Repeatability of results does not imply a consistent offset. It in fact only implies a consistent model used on all SH3 uboats (excepting possibly the XXI). This fact is borne out by the consistent contributor to battery charge/discharge time being the underwater range. This is further indicated because changing both electric motor horsepower and/or diesel engine horsepower have no impact on battery charge/discharge time meaning they must be independent of battery capacity. This implies a static electric motor and diesel engine size for all uboats with respect to battery charge/discharge (unlikely) or a single variable input associating battery size (in amp-hours) with underwater range (more likely given the results evidenced through testing).

E.g. for the Typ IID:

The underwater ranges in the .sim files are supposed to be nautical miles, but they're not. They are what I called "UBI-pseudo-units". The SH3 engine mutiplies them with a factor (1,8 IIRC) to convert them "again" to nautical miles.So the underwater range of the IID in the .sim files (in "ubi-pseudo-units") is converted in my fix to 36 or 37. The game muliplies this by 1,6 and you now get ~57 (reference range is 56). Bear also in mind that the SH3 ruler measures in kilometers.

The units used in the *.sim files, and the ranges used in SH3 are only relevant in the SH3 world, therefore it is impractical to assume that variance between results must be due to a conversion error.

For example, using a Type VIIB with the AFA27MAK740, nominally rated for 6940 amp-hours:

This battery has the following entry in the basic.cfg:

NameIdx2=1265
Year2=1939
Month2=1
NbSub2=1
Sub20=1
Renown2=0
Name2=AFA27MAK740
Energy2=1

Please note the Energy2=1 entry. This entry is in fact as critical to the submerged range of the uboat as the *.sim entry. It is just as easy to get exactly the same effect by reducing the basic.cfg entry to 0.8 instead of changing the submerged range in the *.sim file. This further demonstrates the relationship between battery capacity and underwater range (single variable relationship).

Take for example the AFA27MAK800, nominally rated for 8480 amp-hrs. This represents a 22% increase in battery capacity. Now the basic.cfg entry:

NameIdx3=1266
Year3=1940
Month3=4
NbSub3=1
Sub30=1
Renown3=0 ;600
Name3=AFA27MAK800
Energy3=1.15

In this case the developers have chosen to only give a 15% boost in range. Perhaps because of the shockingly bad battery model, or was it better data from research? One can only speculate.

Finally, the AFA33MAL800, nominally rated at 9160 amp-hrs. This battery represents a 32% improvement over the original AFA27MAK740. In this case the SH3 developers have chosen to give nearly the full credit, a 30% increase:

NameIdx4=1267
Year4=1941
Month4=10
NbSub4=1
Sub40=1
Renown4=0 ;1500
Name4=AFA33MAL800
Energy4=1.30

As I mentioned above, it is actually simpler to modify the values in the basic.cfg rather than change the values in the *.sim files.

But, to continue with my example. Using the stock underwater range in the *.sim file for the Type VIIB, when the battery only has 10% charge remaining the boat has traveled 135.8 km (plus or minus a few km) at 4 knots. The proscribed underwater range for the Type VIIB with the AFA27MAK740 battery is 80 nm at 4 knots. Furthermore, by this time, the speed has fallen to about 2 knots. As previously noted, the boat continues to drift (actually under propulsion) for another 22 (plus or minus a few km) when the speed falls under 2 knots. At this speed the LI would be unable to maintain depth control easily, yet the SH3 uboat is perfectly on depth. This translates to 85.6 nm. I'd call that close enough.

Sadly I have thrown away all my handwritten notes from this work and cannot give you references for the measured distances with the ruler; but believe me I have triple-checked the results, and they were OK.

The battery "fix" is not realistic for the following reasons:
1. It artificially reduces the battery charge to result in the "battery empty" message at the appropriate distance. First of all, a battery is never empty unless someone dumps the sulfuric acid and lead/lead oxide plates out of the individual cells. The battery is really fully discharged. Secondly when that message is displayed the battery is not really fully discharged. It actually has some charge left (~3-5%). This is reflected by the continued forward motion at about 1 knot and by simple inspection of the battery voltage meter. I have tested this and traveled for over 3 days at 1 knot on the electric motors after the battery empty message.

I understand about the "drifting" with 1 knot. But this not useful speed to go anywere or evade DDs. Also you would die from CO2 before the three days...

I agree, however let me point out that with your battery fix, there is a substantial amount of time drifting around at only slightly more than 1 knot. This is necessary to get the required range from the boat. In fact, one must do so for 24 nautical miles (44 km) in my Type VII example above.

I agree with you that the battery model (charging / discharging) was not very detailed. But you know, these guys (developers) have many more importand part of the game to fix (the battery model is the 0,1% of the game) :-j


2. The developers did not choose to model house loads. When the battery is fully discharged, internal loads (such as the lights) should dim or become unusable as the battery continues to discharge (remembering the largest load by far is the electrical propulsion motors). For lead acid batteries battery state is measured by the number of amp-hours discharged, individual cell voltages (to prevent a cell reversal) and battery specific gravities with specific gravity being the most accurate method of measuring battery charge.

I totally agree. It would add to the excitement to have your lights dimmed etc. But this does not make my modlet / fix less realistic. Probably you mean the current battery modelling is not realistic.

I do mean the current SH3 battery modeling is not realistic, but I also mean that your reduced ranges are equally unrealistic. This is because the range is based on this "battery empty" message, something that is not technically possible in the world of lead acid batteries, but more on that in a minute.


3. The battery range "fix" also incorrectly reduces the time required to charge the battery by the amount of time proportional to the adjusted range. For example if the battery charge time with the submerged range set to 80 nm is 6 hours, when the submerged range is reduced to 64 nm, the battery charge time will be reduced to 4 hrs 48 min. This give the uboat an unfair advantage especially when not using the snorkel.

Yes, I agree. This would involve fiddling with the engine settings as it was done with the temporary battery fix of the XXI. The marginal utility of my free time prevented me from diving deeper on this. I hope you have more luck on this.:up:

As I mentioned above, the engine settings have no impact on battery change/discharge time. I tested this on a Type VII. While it may in fact be different for the XXI, that does not appear to be the case for the other boats.


4. At extremely low speeds the LI is still able to maintain perfect depth control. This is extremely difficult and unrealistic.

This sounds good (at least as an option; not for everyone), but has nothing to do with the batter.

Actually it has everything to do with the battery. The batteries main function is to provide power to the electrical motors which in turn provides propulsion. Propulsion is crucial to helping the LI (or the DOOW - Dive in my jargon) keep depth control. Any good Dive will tell you depth control depends on three crucial elements: planes, angle and speed. This speed is a crucial element provided by the battery.


When you get the message that there is only 10% charge left in the battery, it is in fact fully discharged for the purpose of using the electric motors.

With 10% you can still go with 1,5 - 2,5 knots IIRC. Not very useful speed, but at least it is something. IMHO, the correct level for not using your e-motors is the battery Empty.

As I've mentioned above, "battery empty" is technically incorrect. The battery is fully discharged. First, we have no idea where the developers intended to make operation of the electrical propulsion motors impractical from a battery charge perspective. It appears as though this may have been 90% discharged. This is reasonable from a technical perspective because we really have no idea the capacity (in amp-hours) or discharge rate of the battery as modeled in SH3. Furthermore it's unknown if they did this to factor in effects such as low ICV and cell reversal (cell reversal can ruin a battery and potentially place the ship in danger). Secondly the speed drop (though this is another area of very possible poor battery modeling) at 90% discharged implies the practical limits of battery propulsion power have been reached.

Impressive work you did for the tonnage of the ships! :up:

Thanks!

I'm not trying to be argumentative (or mean), I'm just trying to point out why reduced ranges in the battery fix mod are not realistic from a technical standpoint. I probably should have commented on this earlier, but I had hoped for a response from the developers to provide some additional support for my conclusions.

[Beery]

If we exclude the XXI, which is mal-modeled...

People say the Type XXI is mal-modelled, but I'm not so sure. Personally, I don't know why so many people make a lot of fuss about the Type XXI battery anyway. In some respects the XXI battery works more like a real battery than the batteries on the other boats - no battery on earth recharges to 100% capacity, so if anything it's the other boats we should be looking at, to make them charge more realistically. Also, it works PRECISELY to the specifications cited on Uboat.net in that it It takes the boat 3-5 hours to charge the batteries with the Schnorchel to enable the boat to travel on electric power for 2-3 days if travelling at moderate 4-8 knots. That's what uboat.net says the Type XXI did, and that's what SH3's Type XXI does (I know this because I tested it when people came to me, months ago, moaning about it). Sure, it only ever shows a 90% charge, but if it does what Uboat.net says it should do, so what? Finally, the Type XXI never fired a shot in anger, so I can't see why any true simulation enthusiast should really care how it performs. For all intents and purposes, in terms of a combat simulation, it's a pure fantasy boat.

To me this has always been a mildly annoying issue that should be a non-issue. The Type XXI, much like the Type VIIC/42, is a fantasy boat loved by arcade fans who want to command an uber-boat in WW2, but this sim is not called 'Secret Weapons of the Kriegsmarine', and the 'U' in U-boat stands for 'Untersee', not 'Uber'. :-j

This issue comes up perennially, some people get all hot and bothered about it and, in my opinion at least, it just doesn't matter.

[Salvadoreno]

Personally, I don't know why so many people make a lot of fuss about the Type XXI battery. In some respects the XXI battery works more like a real battery than the batteries on the other boats - no battery on earth recharges to 100% capacity, so if anything it's the other boats we should be looking at, to make them charge more realistically. Also, it works PRECISELY to the specifications cited on Uboat.net in that it It takes the boat 3-5 hours to charge the batteries with the Schnorchel to enable the boat to travel on electric power for 2-3 days if travelling at moderate 4-8 knots. That's what uboat.net says the Type XXI did, and that's what SH3's Type XXI does (I know this because I tested it when people came to me, months ago, moaning about it). Sure, it only ever shows a 90% charge, but if it does what Uboat.net says it should do, so what? Finally, the Type XXI never fired a shot in anger, so I can't see why any true simulation enthusiast should really care how it performs. For all intents and purposes, in terms of a combat simulation, it's a pure fantasy boat.

To me this has always been a mildly annoying issue that should be a non-issue. The Type XXI, much like the Type VIIC/42, is a fantasy boat loved by arcade fans who want to command an uber-boat in WW2, but this sim is not called 'Secret Weapons of the Kriegsmarine', and the 'U' in U-boat stands for 'Untersee', not 'Uber'. :-j

This issue comes up perennially, some people get all hot and bothered about it, and IT DOESN'T MATTER! If folks want an uber fantasy boat, they should just change the range and speed settings to suit what they want from it. There are some folks out there who want to spend time lobbying for mod-makers to spend time on this nonsense. Personally, I think the time can be much better-spent making truly significant changes in the sim.

Hey Beery while i really did love your RUb 1.45, i find it offensive to the NYGM and GW modders when u say RUb 1.45 is more realistic and such to these other obviously superior mods. I know i don't really deserve to say much since i have contributed NOTHING to the community, but the NYGM TW mod adds sOO much more to Rub1.45 in terms of realism. The entire written Mediteranean campaign is the reason why i love the mod so much. I want to add GW campaign files to as well as graphics and habor traffic, but all my attempts have been futile and my game ends up crashing. So my setup consists of just
Nygm TW
Sink them all V2.2
Numerous graphics mods

But i cannot wait until they fully integrate these two mods without it being so confusing. The brilliantly written Mediteranean campaign alone is enough to blow RUB 1.45 out of the water (no offense) and the Ship damage models/DG-AA models/Damage models/and Aircraft behavior/ is something RUb 1.45 did not even touch. Your a brilliant modder Beery, i enjoyed your mods, but you didn't even try these mods and you had something to say about them. I believe thats why CdreGibbs answered the way he did. I do look foward to your new mod, but your problem with "milkcow" seems exagerratted and the milkcow problem is very miniscule. You dont even have to use it! I for one find it very immersive to know that these U-tankers are even out there, and i have never used em but my gameplay has not suffered!

I apologize ahead of time if you find this offensive. Oh by the way. GLAD YOUR BACK! lol. I hope you can bring your brilliant modding mind into the other projects or create another RUb for todays realism gammers!

[Beery]

Hey Beery while i really did love your RUb 1.45, i find it offensive to the NYGM and GW modders when u say RUb 1.45 is more realistic and such to these other obviously superior mods.

When accusing me of saying something, please do me the courtesy of quoting the specific sentence you take issue with and its context. Otherwise it looks like trolling (especially since the bit you did quote has nothing at all to do with your argument). I've explained the reasons for my opinions on both NYGM and GW, and whatever your opinion might be, I won't apologise for having my own opinion.

For those folks who haven't read the post he's referring to, I'll clarify:

I said that NYGM was less realistic than RUb only because it carries a mod which is unfinished (the Milk Cow mod) and which causes significant realism problems. True, you don't 'have' to use it, but it's there nonetheless, and some people may be led to believe that it is realistic to have what amounts to a dry dock in mid-ocean. I also said that in ALL other respects, NYGM was probably SUPERIOR to, and MORE realistic than, RUb.

As for the GW mod, I said that GW was less realistic because I'm led to understand that the GW mod is supposed to give players a balance between realism and playability - this is how it's marketed. As such it can't possibly be as realistic as RUb or NYGM. Realism isn't its primary focus. As for it being inferior, the person who started that specific thread was asking for 'the most realistic' mod. In that context, GW is inferior to RUb and NYGM. If the context related to playability, GW might indeed be superior, but that wasn't the context of that thread.

[Txema]

Beery,

First of all I want to say that you did an excellent work on RuB 1.45. Actually it has been used as the base to build the other major mods available. Excellent work !!!

However I can not uderstand why you oppose so much to the Milk Cow implementation used in NYGM TW mod. It is not fully realistic, that´s right, but the other solution (increasing the fuel available in a submarine to simulate that it will be *probably* replenished in the future by a Milk Cow) is at least as unrealistic as the solution implemented by NYGM TW mod. Because in this way the submarine has the extra fuel without having to go to a specific location to meet the Milk Cow. So, in my opinion, both solutions are better than the stock game (where you get no extra fuel or torpedoes), but both solutions have realism issues. Taking all of this into account, I prefer the NYGM TW solution because it is much more inmersive while it is not more unrealistic than the other solution... Don´t you think so??

NYGM TW team: please, keep the Milk Cows in your mod. Although they are not the perfect solution, they are the best solution available within the limitations of the SH3 engine.


Txema

[Beery]

...However I can not uderstand why you oppose so much to the Milk Cow implementation used in NYGM TW mod. It is not fully realistic, that´s right, but the other solution (increasing the fuel available in a submarine to simulate that it will be *probably* replenished in the future by a Milk Cow) is at least as unrealistic as the solution implemented by NYGM TW mod.

Mine is an abstraction, true. And the Milk Cow mod in NYGM is less abstract, BUT the flaw is not in terms of abstraction, as is the case with the SH3 Commander/RUb mod - the flaw is a big non-abstract dry dock in mid-Atlantic. I don't see that as being more realistic than my solution. Others may disagree with me.

Because in this way the submarine has the extra fuel without having to go to a specific location to meet the Milk Cow.

The Milk Cows were placed along the standard routes that the U-boats used. It's not as if U-boats had to go way out of their way to get to a Milk Cow. After all, that would defeat the purpose.

Anyway, if people want to use the Milk Cow mod, I'm not stopping them, and I'm certainly not lobbying for the NYGM mod to abandon it. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's as realistic as my solution. After all, the Milk Cow mod was one of the mods I was interested in for use in RUb. It was freely available, but I chose not to use it because of its problems. It's not like I'm suddenly coming out against it, and it's certainly not like I have some prejudice against it or its maker - it was a great effort to build a positive feature, but in my opinion the game's restrictions wouldn't allow it to work properly. It's just that I always felt it was flawed because of the repair issue. I felt that way six months ago and I feel the same way today. It's no one's fault that it didn't quite work out. Like I said before, it was a good effort, but sometimes things don't quite work. Some folks feel it works well enough for them. I'm just not one of them.

[Cdre Gibs]

As for the GW mod, I said that GW was less realistic because I'm led to understand that the GW mod is supposed to give players a balance between realism and playability - this is how it's marketed. As such it can't possibly be as realistic as RUb or NYGM. Realism isn't its primary focus. As for it being inferior, the person who started that specific thread was asking for 'the most realistic' mod. In that context, GW is inferior to RUb and NYGM. If the context related to playability, GW might indeed be superior, but that wasn't the context of that thread.

Thats why I suggested the install version I gave him. If installed in that order he will get the most realistic CURRENT version of SH3 that I believe is possible.

SHIII <-- Base game (of course)
1.4b Patch <-- needed for many reasons as we know
GW <-- Adds more content than god
GW 1.1 patch <-- Still adds more content than god
NYGM <-- adds the first element of base REALISIM (has RUB built in AFAIK)
NYGM Unified GW campain. <-- adds content and REALISIM
DG-AA_Destabilized_v1.02 <-- fix's a REALISIM issue between GW and NYGM (but not required if ppl so desire)

So why cant he have both, no reason at all, or are you implying that to be a realisim player 1 must forgo extra content ?? As I said that would give him the level of realisim he was after and a BIG boost to game content (eye candy, medium realisim boost an so forth). Just because some1 wants to head down the realisim path does not mean that they cant have a version of SH3 with all the bells an whistles on. Since all the realisim bits are installed last He gets as hardcore realisim as it can be. So where is the problem?


Oh and since NYGM has RUB built in (modified I admit) why limit him to just RUB. Therefore, I still believe that with the above mods RUB is indeed outdated AT THE MOMENT. Now its up to you to surpass all the above. Good luck.

PS: just a suggestion, if you do another RUB, make it as seemless with the above mentioned mods as much as possible, because ppl will only ask you, a)is it compatible with XXXX, b)can you combine with XXXX.

[VonHelsching]

If we exclude the XXI, which is mal-modeled...


To me this has always been a mildly annoying issue that should be a non-issue. The Type XXI, much like the Type VIIC/42, is a fantasy boat loved by arcade fans who want to command an uber-boat in WW2, but this sim is not called 'Secret Weapons of the Kriegsmarine', and the 'U' in U-boat stands for 'Untersee', not 'Uber'. :-j

This issue comes up perennially, some people get all hot and bothered about it and, in my opinion at least, it just doesn't matter.

Hi Beery,

I understand your view. I also understand why you limited some choices in RuB. Since as you say this issue comes always up, there must be a reason, which you may not realise.

I'm the definition of a "gamey" player / XXI fanboy and I enjoyed playing the stock game plus HT for many months until moving to GW. And also I seldom play alone. Usually I'm just the helmsman. My 6yo son is the Kaleun who decides where to head and which port to raid. :-j

I'm afraid it was an issue for me (until I made the fix using a concept by Ducimus). The issue form me was neither the recharge time nor anything else, but the fact that I had to manually switch off the recharging mode to get full speed. It was an irritating "feature" that ruined my gameplay.

I am also afraid that SH3 is also (at least partially) "The sectret weapons of the Kriegsmarine", since VIIC/42 and XXI *were* included in the game. This is not a sin; "thou shal not use VIIC/42s". :-j

It's a good thing to have choices. With a broad range choices you get more people buying the game. A lot of them enjoy gameplay / eye candy, like me. In fact I have the gut feeling that they must be the silent lurking majority in this forum.

Look what happened with Grey Wolves (which is way more "real" than the stock game, BTW). You must have been away for some time, but there was a recent flood of new people getting / returning into the game a year *after* it was released. Hell, some guy even posted an Alternative Timeline Mod, which I installed and it is great work!

This post is not intended to start an argument. Just to help you realise why other people have different views.

Best,

VonHelsching

[Beery]

The issue form me was neither the recharge time nor anything else, but the fact that I had to manually switch off the recharging mode to get full speed. It was an irritating "feature" that ruined my gameplay.

There is that. However, I must admit that, for someone like me who has never once taken out a Type XXI on a career patrol, the problem doesn't come up.

I am also afraid that SH3 is also (at least partially) "The sectret weapons of the Kriegsmarine", since VIIC/42 and XXI *were* included in the game. This is not a sin; "thou shal not use VIIC/42s". :-j

Opinion is divided on the subject. In my opinion it's a mortal sin. I mean what feature did they skimp on or miss out entirely in order to put two U-boats in the game that never participated in the war? Did we miss out on wolfpacks because of it? I doubt that many people would say that the Type VIIC/42 and the Type XXI are more important than wolfpacks, or even Milk Cows.

I realise that different people have different views, and I know why they hold those views. All I'm doing is posting my own views and letting people know why I hold them.

People also have to realise and accept that I'm not always going to agree with them. I am allowed to disagree. In fact, that's what forums are all about. If we all agreed there wouldn't be anything to discuss. If I want universal agreement, sycophancy and fanboyism I can go to the IL-2 forums and listen to everyone there raving about how great the game is and how Oleg Maddox is God. I guess to some that's real entertainment, but I prefer a bit of disagreement, reasoned argument and critical thinking. That's why I like these forums. ;)

[Tonnage_Ace]

Good post, Beery made. Oleg Maddox reference lol.

I've been torn between acquiring the VIIC/42 or the XXI, simply because both subs are released at around the same time, unless some lucky fool has 30,000 renown for the XXI and 3000+ renown for the VIIC/42, plus upgrades, in which case he can simply captain both before the end of the war. I've got GW 1.1 as well as Unified Campaign, but I can't see any good argument to settle for the VIIC/42, over the XXI. I don't believe the VIIC/42 can dive to 350m and survive, contrary to what the manual says, although I haven't tried out the VICC/42 with GW's yet so I can't be sure what changes have been made. I think passive acoustic equipment on board allied ships had a limit of 300m in which case, the VIIC/42 would be beneficial.

Has anyone used a VICC/42 with great success? Love to hear how.

[Beery]

I've been torn between acquiring the VIIC/42 or the XXI...

Take the XXI. At least 118 Type XXIs were actually built. No Type VIIC/42 was ever built.

[VonHelsching]

I am allowed to disagree. In fact, that's what forums are all about. If we all agreed there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

I'll have to agree to that! Hell, I'll even drink to that :up:

OT:
I have an English friend. Last year we stayed in his house I told him:
Roger, you have excellent scenery and countryside; but the weather is terrible.

He answered: If there wasn't for the weather, we Brittish wouldn't talk to each other! :-j

[VonHelsching]

I'm not trying to be argumentative (or mean), I'm just trying to point out why reduced ranges in the battery fix mod are not realistic from a technical standpoint. I probably should have commented on this earlier, but I had hoped for a response from the developers to provide some additional support for my conclusions.


Not at all, Observer! Your comments were accurate and very constructive :up:

I understand your point. Regarding the use of basic.cfg as opposed to the .sim files you are technically correct, but difficult for handling as a mod, if you know what I mean.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you about at which point the battery is considered empty. I say when "empty" and you say "when at 10%". From my point of view it actually doesn't matter. It's just a game.

It doesn't matter if you didn't post earlier about this. Better late than never...Which reminds me; do you happen to have *any* kind of data about this:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=51707

I'm sure you'll bring up something... My research was a faliure. :damn:

[Beery]

I have an English friend. Last year we stayed in his house I told him:
Roger, you have excellent scenery and countryside; but the weather is terrible.

He answered: If there wasn't for the weather, we Brittish wouldn't talk to each other! :-j

Not only that, but if it wasn't for the foul weather, the countryside wouldn't be so beautiful when it's sunny. I've visited twenty or thirty countries, and I've lived in three, but I've never seen anything to match the English countryside in summer.

[JScones]

...but I've never seen anything to match the English countryside in summer.
Yeah, it's pretty terrible isn't it. I can't think of anything as bad either - although I think I saw a VIIC skin here somewhere just as grey and dirty with a touch of yellow. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

JUST JOKES GUYS!!! South England looks great in Summer.

Seriously, nothing's better than Australia in Summer...or Canberra in Autumn for that matter. "Where the bloody hell are you?"

[JCWolf]

...but I've never seen anything to match the English countryside in summer.
Yeah, it's pretty terrible isn't it. I can't think of anything as bad either - although I think I saw a VIIC skin here somewhere just as grey and dirty with a touch of yellow. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

JUST JOKES GUYS!!! South England looks great in Summer.

Seriously, nothing's better than Australia in Summer...or Canberra in Autumn for that matter. "Where the bloody hell are you?"


Sidney, that will be mi next stop, soon...

PS: what have i done to deserve an Avatar like this!!! :rock: :rotfl: :rotfl: