SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - *** Official SH4 patch 1.3 Update straight from the horse's mouth ***

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

- - *** Official SH4 patch 1.3 Update straight from the horse's mouth *** (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=115309)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LukeFF

Quote:

Originally Posted by minsc_tdp

* The Submarine upgrade screen will be improved to present the relative merits of various torpedoes and systems that are available to the player.
Rating: 2/10 - Put it on a webpage, no need to waste dev time on this.

The point is to make things easier for the player, not more difficult. I see questions here and at Ubi all the time asking what the merits are of different equipment upgrades and weapons. It is a simple edit, for instance, to the menu.txt file to add information in for each type of torpedo. What's more, SH3 has a very nice description for each type of weapon & piece of equipment in the game. Telling people to "put in on a webpage" is ignorant and impractical - I don't want to alt-tab out to my internet browser and search through a myriad of pages just to find out why I might want a Mark 27 torpedo on my boat.

Quote:

* Sampans and other such vessels will no longer be detected by Hydrophone
Rating: 6/10 - Minor violations of the laws of physics that don't have a seriously detrimental impact aren't too high of a priority, but are >5 since they can be jarring and the annoyance factor is quite high.

This is so silly that you give it such a marginal rating. Simply put, a boat without propellors isn't going to be heard by a boat's passive sonar. It is a significant gameplay issue and more than a "minor violation of the laws of physics."

Quote:

* Colorado class battleships will be added to the game
Rating: 1/10 - Not critical, seems to only be done to appease upset players. The best way to appease them is to fix high priority bugs.

:roll:

Having more ships in the game is always appreciated, and I can't even recall a post here or at Ubi calling for the Colorado BBs. Having another historical ship in the game should always be appreciated, not denounced.

Quote:

* behavior of the sub in heavy seas (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=483)
Rating: 3/10 - Minor violations in graphics or the laws of physics that don't severely affect gameplay cannot have priority over other game stopping issues

Again. :roll: It's a basic law of physics that boats don't "fly" from the peak of one wave to the next. I'd call this a pretty important fix.

Quote:

* collision damage between a sub and a DD or other ship (DD usually blows up), especially since destroyers will intentionally try to ram subs
Rating: 6/10 - Relatively seldom occurence compared to the rest of the game. Exploitation is not an issue except in multiplayer which is very low priority overall IMHO.

Any instance of a warship ramming the submarine should result in catastrophic damage and a quick trip to the bottom of the sea. Again, a pretty important fix, IMO.

Quote:

* the camera in the conning tower tilts the opposite of the motion of the boat
Rating: 2/10 - Graphical anomalies and minor physical or historical inaccuracies only which do not affect gameplay are low priority, sorry

How many times do we have to go over this? :huh: This is like saying a plane that tilts to the right when giving it left bank is a "minor issue." This is NOT a minor physical innacuracy.

I mostly agree with minsc's rating here. Most of this is eye candy stuff. The sub doesn't really fly from wave to wave, this is overstating the problem imho. Only in very rough seas does it really become visible and somewhat annoying. The boat DOES pitch, just not as much as it should. In SHIII it was way overdone on the other hand, with the sub constantly pitching up and down and the bow diving into the seas even if the seastate was almost calm. I found this way more annoying and it looked ridiculous, especially from the outside view.

The last one really is only a graphical anomaly. The comparison with an airplane doesn't apply imho, since you don't fly the boat and will only notice it when memorizing the movement from the outside / bridge view whilst sitting in the conning tower. It doesn't break anything in the game. I myself never noticed it.

About adding a new Battleship - well, that's fine, let's hope though that the time needed for that isn't cut off from fixing what's broken.

Unlimited CO2 does not work

Have not seen anything on the Unlimited CO2 check not working. Anyone else experiance this? I have had this since day 1. Not too big of a deal, but it does appear to be a bug.

I'd really like to see one of the features of SH3 included in SH4. Range to target in periscope view and approx. speed.

Requesting that the Mission to the Marshall Islands be cancelled and more enemy traffic included for the Carolina's.

I assume the BB had probably been mostly finished anyway. New ships that aren't targets are not terribly important, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LukeFF
Any instance of a warship ramming the submarine should result in catastrophic damage and a quick trip to the bottom of the sea. Again, a pretty important fix, IMO.

I've not yet gotten to experience being rammed by a destroyer, or any ship other than the special agent raft, but in reality a submarine's cylindrical hull is stiffer and stronger than a surface ship's of similiar tonnage. You can even try an experiment: take an empty soda can as a submarine and a can cut in half longwise as a destroyer and ram the two together, see which one comes out on top. Not an exact scientific experiment, but it's mythbuster quality.

Historically, I don't know that a destroyer ramming a submarine would have exploded into flames and sunk, but it's not that far fetched to believe that a small destroyer would have suffered catastrophic damage while the submarine only had minor damage after an impact.

Also, when comparing this bug against others in the game, I agree with minsc that this bug doesn't rate in the top "must fix". Who cares if the destroyer ramming is accurate or not when the entire convoy just screeches to halt as soon as one of theirs is hit? It's a matter of priority, not whether or not the bug is valid, and since we'll be lucky to get anthing out of Ubi, we may as well indicate to them what bugs we think are more important to fix than others.

Bravo, minsc, on a job well done. I hope the devs take your list to heart.

At PD, a DD trying to DC you will likely hit you. Since they try to drive over you to DC, they are constantly in "pure pursuit" and trying to hit you.

While the sub is indeed very strong for its size, it would lose in a collision. Your periscope alone in game right now will gut a warship like a fish.

So while the DD (or whatever) might take serious damage if it hit you, you should never know this because you should be dead. I think that this ramming issue is part of a larger problem, actually. The subs take a rediculous amount of damage on the surface, and repair it really quickly, too.

Try a surface engagement vs DDs. Make sure you are at battle stations for DC to work well. You will look like swiss cheese, but you will still be driving around killing DDs. Why is it I can get hit 10 times by a DD and drive along like nothing happened, but I can sink a DD in 10 rounds (or at least mission kill him by setting him ablaze and bringing him to a stop or near stop).

So I think the ramming issue is partially that the DM for warships is very very poor. They probably have no damage control like subs do, so I think to represent some DC capability they need to be harder to take out than they were (1 shot wise). They are easier to take out than RL right now though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by minsc_tdp

Minsc's Bug Summary with Ratings

ulyanov:

* Call for help/teleport to avoid lots of time lost time compressing back to harbor
Rating: 4/10 - Sorry but I strongly disagree with teleport on principle. However the problem of wasting lots of precious game time sailing back to harbor is somewhat valid, especially if you can only get 256x for some reason. But it sounds like you need a PC upgrade. Even so, I have a very fast, overclocked Core2 at 3+ GHz and I get choppyness/lag over 4096x. So that leads to another bug suggestion which I think is better:

Nothing wrong with my PIV 3.0HT with 2Gb Ram. The bad lag is only when heavily damaged or after having sunk many ships (I've never acheived one or the other individually) either way - not being able to go over 256x TC in a career save is a bad thing.

I can sail out at 4096, and trundle around (not close to shore, obviously) at 4096, but after a while the max TC gets lower and lower... I can't pin down why. It's not a leak - this is persistent across save/reboot/reload.

And as for you disagreeing with teleport on principle, that's cool. Hardcores can play the game the way they want, that's why there's an option to turn on/off manual targetting. But if Ubisoft don't want part timers saying "I played SHIV for 4 hours and only found one ship to sink becuase I spent all my time in transt, I'll never buy another ubisoft game again" then it needs to be accessible to part timers who want to have a career game, but want to get to the action fairly quickly (and from, but only so they can get back to :D ).

Hell, I'd only use it when it all went to hell in a handbasket, but you gotta admit, we're not here to transit. We're here to hunt.

LukeFF -

I've still only processed 3 pages of bugs. There's still 5 more. The main reason I'm being so stingy with my ratings is because I've seen the fix list from 1.1 and 1.2, and they're pretty short, and 1.3 may be the end of it. I firmly believe that we cannot allow distractions from lower priority bugs to take away from the big ones. That's why I give an extremely low rating to adding the Colorado. The devs should not be adding features when there is so, so, so much broken in the game, it's nearly unplayable for most, and this could be the last patch with a very short list of fixes.

I'm thinking of cracking my knuckles and finishing this list tonight, considering every bug from this forum as well as the high-value bugs on sh4bugs.com. But I think we're running out of time, and the devs have not indicated that I'm on the right track with such a list so a big part of me wonders if I'm just spinning my propellers here. But I want this game to work so I'll get to it I guess.

I'm thinking another way to look at this entire problem is more of "this area needs work" rather than "fix these bugs". If DC has a ton of bugs and TC has a few and the AI has a moderate number of bugs, then dev attention should be doled out accordingly. I think when I'm done I'll group the bugs by Category and then average the Ratings within them to come up with an overall "importance" score for each game area that needs work.

the loading times need to be fixed it takes like 15 minutes to load a saved mission that should be corrected and the retirment should be an option for someone that would like to go through the entire war and if possible model truck lagoon in the game with ships like in the original silent hunter game

lt commander lare

DESTROYERS SINK THEMSELVES with depth charges. Some merchies ride so low that they can't move. Also, the "estimate range to contact" in the sonar tab just returns whatever range you estimated with the stadimeter. It works fine if you are at the station though. i'm sure someone mentioned it, sorry. I just had to be extra certain. :D

Could we get the "contact update" in the realism settings broken down to visual / audio contacts? i'd love to play with no visual mapping, thats fun, but its just a pain not having audio bars. Oh well, low priority.

Not sure if this have been mentioned before, but it's sure a critical bug when your base gets transferred in middle of mission and after it doesn't let you dock in your new base.

Welcome:up: DasBoot73

RDP

not the most essential bug, but every once in a while, the entire world begins to vibrate around your sub. Quite annyoung

D'biter, I've seen that same thing happen too -- everything shakes back & forth pretty quick like. Hard to describe, but definitely annoying.