Re: Ship handling issue 688I
 

I still have a dent in the back of my head thanks to "The Dive". :lol:

Re: Ship handling issue 688I
 

In that shot they are doing the right thing. Except the AI uses WAY to much plane angle.

I went back last night and did some more test. What I saw was that when I first order a depth change, no matter up or down, the stern planes put on the opposite bubble.

So what happens is the ship gets out of whack angle-wise and the AI crew starts chasing the bubble up and down. At one point it had 20 deg dive on the stern and 20 deg rise on the bow!

I am VERY impressed by the work that SCS has put into this simulation. I think we all need to stop referring to it as a "game". I also think we need to recognize the amount of difficulty they're having in fixing what we see as "minor" bugs. It's starting to remind me of where we all were with flight simulators about 10 - 15 years ago, they were a lot of fun and a reasonable attempt at modelling reality. When you consider that the SCS folks could be producing some real junk with a lot of "eye candy" and probably making more money in the process, it's doubly impressive. I would be honored to work with any of them. Yes, I write code for a living.
That said, the bass-ackwards ascent is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen... :-) I did a lot of dives/ascends last night and watched the dive planes while I did it. I really don't understand what I saw. Some one who is more knowledgeable should try it and watch the planes while they dive/ascend. It might shed some light on the bass-ackwards problem, if it really is a problem...

Re: Ship handling issue 688I
 

Sorry, I think I am being misunderstood here. Yes, I know the planes both go up when surfacing, I was just saying that it seems like the planes effects are being reversed... So when the planesman puts an up angle on the stern planes, instead of the stern being pushed down as the bow comes up, the opposite is occuring.

If this is still gobbldygook I will try to make an illustration.

My guess is that the up angle on the planes is an attempt of the planesman to correct the up angle on the stern.

The biggest problem that I see with 1.03 is the buoyancy of the subs... my guess is that the balance of the submarine is off on the assent which lead to various over corrections, which combines with the drag and thrust models to produce the behavior we are seeing.

My guess is the proximal cause of the stern rising is the thrust applied to the stern of the ship on the assent... when the sub is rising up to 200 ft everything is fine, but then the planesman attempts to level off the ship, which combines with some reduction in buoyancy... and the effect is unequal on the fore and aft of the boat because of the thrust being at the stern of the ship, which gives the aft more momentum... thus the planes man goes aft planes up to bring the sub level... however, the sub continues to rise so this can't happen until the verticle momentum and buoyancy become smaller forces and the nose can come up to meet the stern, rather than the stern slowing its ascent to allow the nose to catch up... :doh:

See how complicated sub phyics can be... :damn: I'd hate to code this stuff. :hmm: :dead:

Not able to state how realistic current dive and ascend rates are but concerns remain about how they
impinge on MP gameplay. They should be compared with SC/SCX.

DW post 1.03 SW at 15 knots (Time to depth + TD.)

At 60 ft. select 600 ft. - TD. 4 mins. 35 secs.
At 60 ft. select 600 ft. - Time to reach 580 ft.- TD. 3 mins. 10 secs.
At 600 ft. select 60 ft. - TD. 3 mins. 03 secs.
At 600 ft. select 60 ft. - Time to reach 100 ft. - 1 min. 33 secs.

Compare with SCX :-
SW at 15 knots.
At 60 ft. select 600 ft. - TD. 1 min. 53 secs.
At 60 ft. select 600 ft. Time to reach 580 ft. - TD. 1 min. 46 secs.
At 600 ft. select 60 ft. - TD. 1 min. 54 secs.
At 600 ft. select 60 ft. Time to 100 ft. - TD. 1 min. 36 secs.

I leave others to draw conclusions.

PS. This is not a spoiler as I understand coding this stuff lies outside the scope of LwAmi.

Given the preamble, the only reasonable conclusion is that it's easier to evade torps in SCX than in DW... :know:

Right on. ;) ...........
..................and scoot above and below the layer, and do quick peeks over seamounts etc etc.......

Bellman, did you use the game clock or a independant timer?

Stopwatch LW - for all tests. Its the comparison which is interesting.

But I guess all MPers face the same so I dont want to put a negative spin on this though. :roll:
We just need to keep in mind the protracted levelling time, particularly in the SW.

Given depth, I've been trying some angles and dangles at speed and the new SCS physics give some nice
tactical choices. Although the 'Super-Glue' torps now seem pretty adhesive. :damn: :damn:

Then all your numbers are probably wrong unless you made sure your stopwatch and the game clock were in sync. :88)

You have to go by the gameclock when timing game events... because even if the game is running a fraction of a second slower than it should, the watch is going to record that and cause an error at the end.

Sometimes, I have found DW running as much as 50% slower than real time... so I gave up on stopwatch testing.

In any case, SC is not at all a good reference point for DW. I know that Thomas edited the dive rate, but he was changing rather simple equations compared to what is in DW now.

In short, I think its time to let SC go... its not a useful point of comparison for DW, other than as a source of information about how DW should be, if you believe that SC is inherently more accurate and less gamey than DW, which I don't necessarily agree to. ;)

FFG Helo dipping sonar bug
 

Have you made a thread about this problem? I would like to read more on this. I have not played with the FFG much yet. Still working though the Helo, Airplane and Sub parts of the game. I was saving the Surface fleet section for last.

I hope that they get as many bugs as possible fixed myself. Until then I'll just play around the bugs. But it helps to know about them before playing so people don't get frustrated.

:D The outcomes are broadly what I found on 3 previous testings so I think statisticaly if you also take into account
the number of individual tests with any of your ''probably wrong'' inputs the comparisons hold up.
Further ''DW running 50% slower '' only points up the impact of further in game increased level change rates.

I can see your point about timing game events which I'm sure is valid where activity is more complicated but
a bald test with one platform is a different ballgame.

Your criticism does not overcome the very real problem that bubbleheads must deal with the tactical
changes these delays, particularly in levelling off, impose.
Its important that we dont let the baby go out with the bathwater here.

No I dont believe SC was more real but from a bubbleheads perspective the jury is still out whether
the vanilla gameplay has improved in all departments. :up:

Without LwAmi I suspect I would be back permanently with SCX.

Well I wasn't trying to overcome them. :lol:

:P Sleep tight Lufty.