Yeah, but a mod can't delete a file - it can only adjust it or replace it. So I could delete it on my game, but everyone else would have to find it and delete it themselves, and some folks want me to do that for them.

New RFB version is available!
 

www.beerymod.com/SH4/RFB003.7z

Here's a new version (0.03) of the RFB mod. Sorry I'm putting these out so fast. I just can't stop and this one has a great new feature that I've been working on all day:

This new mod comes with 16 new start dates (so 20 in all), covering the entire war from the attack on Pearl Harbor to the attack on Okinawa in June 1945. The start dates have been specifically selected to showcase the game's video briefing movies - you see a different one with every campaign start.

For now the start dates haven't received the full treatment with regard to historical realism - some of the boats available may be historically inaccurate. I'll fix these details later when I get hold of some data.

Here's the part of the readme that details the additions to the game:

Version 0.01:
070326: Removed Ubisoft logo movie. Mod by 9th Flotilla (Data\Movies\Intro\Logo.wmv).
070326: Removed intro movie. Mod by Beery (Data\Movies\Intro\Intro.wmv).
070327: Adjusted realism settings to make 'Realistic' the default game setting and to remove the penalty for using the outside camera view. Mod by Beery (Data\Cfg\GameplaySettings.cfg).
070327: Added realistic sun graphic. Mod by GunMod (Data\Textures\TNormal\tex\sun_b.tga).
----------------------------
Version 0.02:
070327: Added part of Realistic Plotting mod from RUb. Original mod by GouldJG with additional content by Observer (Data\Cfg\Contacts.cfg).
070327: Added Greenlamp mod. Mod by Jimimadrid (Data\Menu\Gui\Layout\HUD.dds, HUD.tga, HUD_AdversarialMode.tga, ReplayElements.dds, ReplayElements.tga).
070327: Added Realistic Battery Life mod. Mod by CCIP (Data\Submarine\NSS_Tambor\NSS_Tambor.sim, Data\Submarine\NSS_Sargo\NSS_Sargo.sim, Data\Submarine\NSS_Salmon\NSS_Salmon.sim, Data\Submarine\NSS_Porpoise\NSS_Porpoise.sim, Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.sim, Data\Submarine\NSS_Balao\NSS_Balao.sim).
070328: Added Crush Depths mod. Mod by CCIP (Data\Submarine\NSS_Tambor\NSS_Tambor.cfg, NSS_Tambor.zon, Data\Submarine\NSS_Sargo\NSS_Sargo.cfg, NSS_Sargo.zon, Data\Submarine\NSS_Salmon\NSS_Salmon.cfg, NSS_Salmon.zon, Data\Submarine\NSS_Porpoise\NSS_Porpoise.cfg, NSS_Porpoise.zon, Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.cfg, NSS_Gato.zon, Data\Submarine\NSS_Balao\NSS_Balao.cfg, NSS_Balao.zon, Data\Submarine\NSS_s18\NSS_s18.cfg, NSS_s18.zon).
070328: Added 'RealisticShipSinkingTime=true' to gameplay settings. Mod by Galanti (Data\Cfg\GameplaySettings.cfg).
070328: Added realistic moon graphic. Mod by Ailantd & Beery (Data\Textures\TNormal\tex\Moon.dds, moon_hallo.dds).
----------------------------
Version 0.03
070328: Removed orange U-boat position marker. Mod by Beery (data\Misc\UMark.dds).
070329: Added mod name and version number to loading screen. Mod by Beery (data\Menu\Loading\Intro_logo_bkg.dds).
070329: Added 16 new campaign start dates to complement the game's video briefings. Mod by Beery (Data\UPCData\UPCCampaignData\CareerStart.upc, CareerVideoBriefings.upc).

nice work.
keep 'em com'n, beery!

Good stuff Beery old chap!

Barkhorn.

Thank you.
 

I have a question though. When going thru the enabling process it says that installation of these mods may have an affect of earlier installed mods. I had installed a few others such as the realistic battery life mods and greenlamp or light mod. Is it possible I will see an adverse affect, or will it just simply overwrite or have no affect on them? Thanks for your important work

If JSGME gives that warning, then it's best to remove the older files. However the mods you mentioned are both included in RFB, so the older files will be entirely overwritten. But Jaesen's the guy to talk to about how JSGME handles such an incident. I know that in general it can get messy if potentially conflicting mods keep getting overwritten, and weird things can start to happen if things get really messy and the game can end up needing to be uninstalled and reinstalled, so I always advise people against overwriting old mods if they can possibly avoid it. JSGME helps avoid these problems, but it's still best to avoid the issue.

Beery,

it could be helpfull for the people to add also my wounded and dead icons in your mod. It helps to see better the difference between wounded or dead crew member.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7...undedenum2.jpg

LINK: http://www.file-upload.net/download-...on--s.rar.html

No worries, Berry - it's like Xmas every day. ;) :up:

Thanks. I will do that in the next version. :up:

you might also, if you're so inclined, try the new values for the thermal layer i came up with (see ==> http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109573):

in sim.cfg, under [Hydrophone] set -

Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.7032 ; where '1' means no signal reduction and '3' equals signal reduction to 33%, then '1.7032'=signal reduction by 22.5% (ie the angle of refraction assuming an averaged 45deg initial source)

and under [Sonar] set -

Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=2.0078 ; where '1' means no signal reduction and '5' equals signal reduction to 20%, assuming a HF pulse of 35KHz and max 'nominal' emmissions of c20KHz gives a modifier of 1.75 which, when compounded (to account for crossing the thermocline twice), produces '2.0078'=signal reduction by 19.69% (apparent attenuation)

Hehe, maybe it's because I just woke up, but I have no idea what all that means. Does it mean that the chances of hearing the sub increase by a couple of percent using the tweak?

hehehe

yes.

in stock, the chance of passive detection when under the layer is reduced to 33% of it's value when above the layer, and to 20% in the case of active.

with the values i figured the chance of passive detection when under the layer is 77.5% of it's value when above the layer, and 80.31% in the case of active.

(ie a considerable toning-down of the stock thermocline effect)

also, if date-based cfg file editing/replacement happens eventually through some 3rd party app then i'm considering adjusting as well for seasonal variation.

The thing is, I'm not at all sure if making the thermal layer effect less effective is the way to go. My memory is a bit fuzzy so I might be mistaken, but during the time when I was working on SH3 I seem to recall reading somewhere that in WWII the vast majority of subs that were sunk were attacked at or near the surface. Subs that got deep enough before their attackers got close enough to launch depth charges usually evaded detection and often survived even prolonged depth charge attacks because sensors simply had little chance of detecting deep subs. If subs that got deep were caught it was usually because the pursuing vessels were hunter-killers that could stick around until the sub had to resurface.

If the above is the case it argues for a strong thermal layer effect to counterbalance what may well be overmodelled sensors in SH4's ships (if they're anything like those of SH3).

Perhaps this would be a good subject for a modmaker discussion session. I think we need to figure out how effective SH4's sensor models really are. I'd hate to be in a situation we found commonplace in SH3 - to be caught by a ship's sensors and unable to escape no matter what evasive techniques we used.

If you look at Dangerous Waters which now has a pretty good model of underwater sound propagation, thermal layers have a big impact in blocking out or deflecting sounds.

i agree this would make for a good discussion session.

with the numbers i figured there i was trying to get at a theoretical value for what the actual attenuation effect would be, but of course you're correct that historical circumstance might very well indicate otherwise (and that my figuring is off the mark)...

i'm really not interested in using the layer as a 'fix' for asw behavior though, but rather would like to try and model the 'actual' effect it'd have on the in-game sensor mechanics.

the stock value's reduction to 20%/33% of above-the-layer values seems extreme (which prompted my trying to calculate 'accurate' values in the first place), but perhaps the refraction effect really is that pronounced?
:hmm:

if any dw gurus are hanging about perhaps they might shed some light on the subject?

i think i'll go ahead and post in the dw forum and see if some of those sonalyst chaps might be able to assist in determing correct values for the attenuation effect...

cheers
hc

hehehe
beat me to the punch
:D

the question is of course what does "big" actually mean...
:hmm:

I think it's great that you're working towards full realism, and I'd really love to be able to use your numbers if we can achieve full realism in this regard. But there's a huge spectre looming over us, and that's the fact that the devs made certain sensors in SH3 literally unbeatable. Until I'm assured that that issue is behind us I'll be proceeding very cautiously on any issue that has to do with sensor effectiveness, as my goal of realistic results may require that some details be fudged to counterbalance the devs' sometimes half-assed (or was it overzealous?) implementation of certain features. I'm thinking that the thermal layer is a detail that may be very effective as a slider function to counterbalance a developer's insanely effective sensors. I really wish we'd had it in SH3 - it would have reduced the time we spent trying to overcome the sensor imbalance by weeks.

Its hard to know what the effect is, this may be of interest:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/...P/snr_prop.htm

look at fig. 13 in particular, although based on what I saw in SH3, the sound propagation model is very simple compared to DW.

that's a great link.
thanks bilge_rat!

indeed, there really doesn't appear to be any sound propagation model per se in sh4, but rather we're presented with probability range values.

in that regard, of particular interest from the doc you posted i'd cite a couple of things:

so i suppose the way to phrase the prime determinant in making this sort of reductionist calculation might be -- what percentage of the ray emissions nominally diverge from those that penetrate the layer?

i definitely hear you on this, but aren't the sensors values for all intents and porpoises (couldn't resist given the topic ;)) subject to modification through the the .sim and .cfg files? and wouldn't it be good to proceed with adjusting those after the environmental variables (such as thermocline effects) are straightened out?

[and o.t., but how appropriate is it that my avatar is now "soundman"? :lol: cool!]