Bubblehead Nuke:Thats what I did in testing Sea Demons 'quirky' top o'the heap ! So reported confirming your ''May'' level out.

There was no ''level starting point'' I was heading down steeply at full bell from 1400 ft at full rudder which had
maintained an ever decreasing rate of turn. On EB my SW backed up verticaly but I stablised horizontaly at 400 ft.,
confirmed in the 3D view, as reported.

Been awhile, but I do know something about flying. And there were earlier discussions about the physics of moving a sub through the water and the similarities to airplanes. The phrase "snap roll" was mentioned.

Pilots are also aware of the aircraft's maneuvering speed -- the speed above which a rapid, full deflection of the rudder is not safe. A similar limit on a sub seems reasonable (though maybe the threat that the rudder will break is not the reason in this case).

I remember when I went to one of Sonalysts games after playing the old game, Seawolf. I was complaining about bit because there was only 1 layer. Why not 4, like Seawolf?

There was also a time when there wasn't TMA, when classification was done by the computer, when subs ran at flank on the surface, and when drifting by at 4 knots was all that was needed to know about tactics.

Now, I guess it's time for sub simmers to get used to subs that move with more complexity. If this crucial area is worked out, it might not be long for good ole F1 station to require a yoke.

:D With the 'new' dynamics we might be just a spit away from playing at the edges of 'angles and dangles.'

Truthfully I never thought about the force of the water driving the subs nose down causing it to dive at higher speeds before I was told about it. Now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense and I think it’s awesome that this is modeled into DW. It might even become useful in some situations while playing. I’m more use to WWII sub warfare and the previous games like 688(i) Hunter/Killer and Sub Command where things like this were not modeled in the games physics, and since nothing was mentioned in the patch readme about this new feature I didn’t know what to think of it at first. Its just something we need to get use to and I think in time will be apart of the game most of us will be happy to have. :yep:

Wolfy

I played a lot of flight sim games over the years and learned a little bit about flying models. I too was thinking that the modeling of these subs may be simlar to airplanes but then I rethought that though. Airplanes are moving in an air medium not water. Airplanes get lift from the wings but subs don't work like that. Subs get lift from air inside them I guess and they don't really have to move fast to get lift. Subs don't really have wings either. The center of gravity of a plane and a sub are much different. A sub can flood tubes in various compartments inside the sub or push air into those same compartments. Therefore one end of the sub can become more or less boyant than the other end. Airplanes are not going to change their center of gravity very much unless they drop some ordinace or use up fuel. Even then the placement of fuel tanks and ordinace is taken into consideration when loading the plane before takeoff.

At first I was thinking that modeling flight sims may be harder but now I am not so sure. The bouyancy of the water is changing with depth and the bouyance of the different compartments of these subs changes with the amount of water or air in the various compartments.

I do know one thing. My sub (Seawolf) when at 200ft and ordered to surface is nose heavy on the way up until it reaches about 50ft then it levels off and rises to the surface in a level position. This does look wierd when using the 3D external view. Not a game stopper but certainly a funny thing that occurs.

When I did my testing on the sub being nose heavy while surfacing I found that at the point where the sturn begins to level out with the bow and the bow begins to rise again your depth is paused for a specific ammount of time leaving you somewhat vulnerable. Once your sub is level again you will continue to come up.

I wonder If a torpedo was locked onto you and you blew balast and your sturn began to rise could this cause the torpedo to miss? I might try and test this sometime...

Wolfy

Water and air are fluids, and has the same phisics laws, only have different density.

The modelling could be the same, only change the type of machine in this fluid .

A submarine in the water has the same behaviour that a blimp, but the blimp uses helium to obtain bouyancy wereas the submarine use air.

:yep:

Yes both are fluids but the densities of those fluids make hovering in midair for a fixed wing aircraft a lot different than a submarine hovering in the depths.

Now you are right about the ballon or blimb behaving very much like a submarine in a fluid. Those models would be pretty similar. I guess I was thinking more of airplanes that have to move though the air to have their wings create the lift vector that counters the pull of gravity.

I guess my point was that I thought it would be harder to model an airplane flying than a blimp flying. I could be wrong here. I do think that modeling flight sims is difficult. I am sure that modeling a submarine is not easy either.

I guess it's all a matter of force vectors and timing.

And this whole time I thought air was mixture of gasses... :88)


:P

Gasses are fluids you putz. :lol:

With regard to some of the earlier apologist comments, I don't doubt that the physics model that causes some roll during a turn (thus pointing the rudder slightly down and causing a dive) is realistic. BUT, this feature was added without giving us the tools to deal with it.

First, the AI planesmen aren't doing their jobs.

Second, the AI helmsmen (when ordered to go to a course) apparently use "too much" rudder, because the nose dive still happens.

Third, we only have a full rudder hotkey, and ordering evasive turns from ship control instead of from NAV is reckless.

Lastly, in DW, a small amount of rudder at high speed does NOT yield a high turn rate (in spite of what an earlier commenter said should be/is the case.

ML as usual RL gets in the way - Marconi was talking actuality I think.

Unrealisticaly in game max rudder at high speed allows a very high rate of turn little drag is modelled.
This rate of turn builds so the radius of the turn diminishes and the sub corkscrews in with the rate
steadying after about 270 degs. (Saw you original test pre 1.03 and its conclusion, which I repeated -
and confirmed for myself. Must retest now and hope ;) )

Like an aircraft using heavy rudder ownship rotates around its own axis and as it turns through 90 deg the
rudder takes on the function of an elevator pulling the nose downwards. With no in game airelon equivalent this
tendency cannot be counteracted or controlled.

In extremis manoeuvre we have to go manual control which as you say is digital - full right/centre/left
If, as I have suggested before, we had anologue control, as in flight sims, we could achieve much better finessing
of control. Although aerilon/trim limitations would remain. ;)

Eh, if the turn rate at high speed for low rudder is realisticly modeled, plus the AI planesmen are doing their jobs, and we get FFG-style rudder hotkeys, we'll be fine. No need to plug in a flightstick. :|\

:D ML those last two statements seem inconsistent.:o Lawyer speak ? ;) Backing it both ways ? :D

Digital rudder, as implemented with the new physics model of inertia momentum, is crude, IMO.
It makes achieving the constant adjustments to hold a rate of turn almost impossible.

Like to know more about ''if FFG key........'' ? For subs ?

Tomorrow I had planned anyway to carry out some SW tests on turn rates assessing speed and depth loss
and searching for optimums.

Looking forward to completing 'Sea Trials' and getting some action. ;) :yep:

FFG has hotkeys for incremental rudder settings, subs only have full rudder.

:P Now thats a revelation.

By ''and we get FFG-style rudder hotkeys, we'll be fine.''
you imply that we are getting this for subs or was that only a very big IF ? :hmm:

No, what I'm saying is that if SCS had increased AI-crew and player-crew control at the same time that it added the snap roll effect to the physics engine, we'd be fine, or if they give us those things we will be fine. The problem is that they did one and not the other. It's poor judgment to add a physical effect without giving players the tools they need to deal with it.

:up: I would like to see some improvements in manual sub rudder control. Short of analogue input. then keys
for different degrees of rudder or worst case even incremental key presses +/- to obtain the more precise
control afforded by mouse selection, in the angle indicator, of Control. But when hard pressed with
a torp on your tail you dont want to be switching positions to go 'eyes down' in Control when you want
eyes glued elsewhere. :o :lol:

' Change course' (C) helps in Nav and together with the "Set Depth' keys a workable alternative
compromise can be found for in extremis situations. When employing a combo of horizontal and vertical
avoidance manoeuvres rudder empoyment is critical and I agree Molon we have more real physics without
appropriate tools to handle it. :hmm:

Or change the rudder hotkeys to maximum SAFE rudder (dependent on speed), instead of suicidal amounts of rudder.

Well I did some testing using a few clues from other posts. I wont bore you with columns of figures
but I got some eyeopeners. Some of my bubblehead habits are based on concepts which have changed.

Briefly I have completed stage 1 - level turns at speed to assess comparitive rudder inputs and Manual v Crew.
(Stage 2 - Angles and Dangles.)

SW 500 ft 35 knts dial in turn 180 dg. Timed 49 secs. Spd. change +2 knts. Depth change + 26 ft. Radius * to completed
turn 372 yds.

Ditto with full sustained rudder - timed 36 secs Spd. change - 5 knts. Depth change + 62 ft.. Radius to completed
turn varied (?) but avge. 405 yds.
* Not the same as radius of turn.

SCS have trained those crew well - the conclusions are obvious when the impact on cavitation is considered.

Another shock was as is claimed in RL that given the same circs as above a gentle 15% manual rudder -
timed at 50 secs with no loss of speed , + 48 ft depth change and RTCT of 707 yds,

OK I know nobody in their right minds will stay 'level' if circumstances permit - as the sub goes
deep we put the 'foot down' and 'screw-in.

And WOW a 35 knt 360 deg with 10 deg manual rudder with no loss of speed, + 39 ft depth change
and a true radius of turn of 214 yds. Now thats what the RL guy said -
From where I'm standing SCS seemed to have done some pretty nice tinkering here. :|\..........and thanks.:rock:
Hats off to them - heck glad it isnt eatable.:roll:

PS. Well before I go a twistin and a turnin I am going a playin with Time Lord Amizaurs new dancin torps. ;)

Yesterday, I made a test of an Akula going 7kts at 150 then 3kts at PD with a SW around 10.5 nm away... the SW fired on my Akula (which is incidental to this story... that's the result of some changes to the AI to make it a bit less dense when it comes to figuring out what every human knows... the quiet 50 or 60 hz tonal out there in the forest of huge signals is the bad guy...).

I immediately went full rudder left rudder and to flank and ordered a depth of 520m.

I didn't time it, but given the coordination of how the sub rolled and pitched down and did a crash dive while turning sharply it made me think of what Sub Sailor was talking about, being able to dive deep and quick during acceleration while also turning fast. The sub went down quickly, but not radically so, the autocrew was able to keep a solid handle on attitude, but I had to do considerable steering correction as the sub had terrific lateral momentum relative to the force the rudder could apply on the 9000 odd tons of akula diving at 5m a second (I wasn't counting but that's what it seemed like) at 33kts.

When I got the turn under control the depth crew slowly brought the sub into a level position around 500m-510m and slowly worked the sub down to 520m (without having the advantage of forward planes at 33kts).

It felt right. That's what I'm trying to say. The maneover I did was very much like an elefantine version of a maneover one would use in a dogfight to disengage below a cloud layer and convert altitude energy into speed energy and boggie out of there before anyone notices there is one less FW 190 in the sky... :arrgh!:

Surfacing is a bit less convincing... I don't really know what to make of most of the behavior... but it's not a gamekiller and even quaint, so it's not even nearly the biggest issue right now. :doh:

My advice is not to go too slow if you are in a nuke... they aren't really designed to stop as far as I know for any period of time and certainly not with the TA out. :know: ;)