caspofungin
Thank you. At this point I've run almost entirely out of ideas. I can get the game to run nicely using CB's settings without RUB. But as soon as I enable RUB I go back to the same problem described earlier. For the last few days I've been testing using RUB only and integrating CB's settings one line at a time but still nowhere near acceptable. Right now I'm looking for a nice balance. What I have so far is a single DD thats almost as deaf as my SO or a DD that is too tenacious

One thing I'm noticing is the pinpoint drops are history.

I wonder how Gouldjg is doing with his tests?-haven't heard from him in a while.

Does anyone have a theory about why things are different when you use RUb?

Its difficult to know what is different.

Rub has a lot of mods, some are eye candy but others modify the game rules. :roll:

i think that in the readme there are a list of included mods.


Great work :up:

Will definitely try these out, Many Thanks. :up: :D

Had high hopes for this one. I set sail and purposely steered for the area around Gibralter. I was looking for trouble and could be assured I'd find it there. Sure enough, it didn't take long for one destroyer to emerge out of the darkness and see me. I took to the depths and waited to see what would happen next. It wasn't long before he called in several of his friends. One after another, more destroyers answered the call. Unfortunately, that was as exciting as it ever got. I set the engines for flank just to draw their attention and not once did any of them go to active sonar - not a single ping. A couple just continued to make sweeps and depth charge runs behind me, but never came close. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the hard work that went into this test mod, but it's going to need much more. I replaced the old files and I found that the destroyers were much more aggressive. Go flank and they've got ya.

The Captain

Myself, I haven't tried the settings yet, but if I were you, I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet. Depending on the year, DD type, and other variables, you may not have gotten an accurate depiction of the settings.

My suggestion is to try it in '44 or '45 and see if the DD's are anymore challenging. My guess is that you will DIE plenty of horrible deaths...

But then again, that's what you wanted, right? :rotfl:

Yeah, you got me there. Admittedly, it's only late 1941. I was still surprised that none of them went to active sonar, though. My engines were doing some hefty RPMs. Granted, a lot more testing is necessary, so please foregive me for jumping the gun. I don't really have a death wish. I guess I just like the occasional good scare. :o

Nevertheless, I like the results that you got.


Being that it was 1941, I wouldn't expect DDs to ante up much resistance, if any. In other words, they are horrible, and that's the way it should be.

And you have to admit, the DDs at least attempted to destroy you. They failed, but that's besides the point. It's probably more important that they found you... And it is just as important that they lost you as well... It goes to say that they are no longer uber DDs.

IMHO I would have to say yipee!!! :up:


Now I am wondering how the later years play out...

@hemisent

i've got my own personal tweaks, and am using them in campaign. if you want to give them a try, i'll happily send you the ai_sensors and sim.cfg file.

only just started campaign w/ RUB 1.45, and haven't run into any convoys just yet (1st time ever since got the game -- a whole 6 week patrol w/out a convoy) but ran into a couple of single destoyers. tried to set up for a shot at 1 but he saw my scope just before i fired and came charging at me, got pummeled w/ dc's for a while but managed to escape but keeping the sharp end pointed at him, so to speak. then ran into a 2 ship convoy in fog (1 c2, 1 large merchant), torped 'em both but a patrolling destroyer came by, forced me under again.

so far, things going ok (1942 start) -- either been picked up on radar on surface or had my scope visually spotted (left it out too long over 1 m). re hydrophones -- picked up at approx 4000m if running at full/flank, >1000m at 1/3 or all slow, undetectable at silent. w/ asdic -- narrow beam geometry allows you to dive under the asdic and take advantage of the dead zone w/out using a forced min range, while the "surface" implementation allows you to take advantage of aspect.

obviously, there's still a lot of testing to be done -- mainly w/ multiple escorts in a convoy attack or w/ h/k groups. also, i have some ideas about implementing late war sonars (q attachment and type 147 "sword" complementing the standard searchlight asdics) but haven't plugged them in just yet. trying to go for good gameplay, but one in which the dd's have the same disadvantages initially that they did irl, and where rl tactics can get you out of a bind (and ignoring those pros/cons can get you into trouble). w/in the limitations of the game engine, of course -- it would be a lot easier if escorts didn't get range and depth info from hydrophones, for example, but that's a separate topic.

anyway, gameplay is the 1st priority. like i said, if you're interested, pm me, and i'll send you the files tomorrow. just bear in mind that things are still in the early testing phase.

@caspofungin

Interesting. You can send me what you got. I think between what all you have found together, a nice middle can be found?

There is a way to change teh hydrophones to be more sensitive without going for infinite off/on toggle state.

You then can increase the range/sensitivity of the active sonar in the AI_Sensors.dat file, this goes for the Hydrophones also (I think).

These setting I am speaking of are not in the sim.cfg, but the actual data in the AI_Sensors.dat file. It is not in anice format, and TT tool will not alter them; must be done by hand.

Maybe that way a good balance can be achieved.

I got bored with Civilization 4 already, so I am back to playing SH3. The DD seem to act as if they have two states, normal and alert; then their 'detection' values jump up to look for you. There seems to be a set of two numbers after the sensitivity entry in AI_Sensors.dat. Alot of testing for sure.

BTY Where is this RPM setting being changed at?

RuB mosting had the 200m range nerf, and the total ANGLE +-bow of the DD active sonar nerf also. Nothing else IIRC. It does have a longer 'hold time' in Sim.cfg as CB mentioned.

Jungman,

If you discover the details on the double sensitivity values, maybe I can make a correct tweak file for them.

TT

Sure, it seems to follow almost a logical progression, except on passive sonar unit does not fit. To test, I am gong to print this out for all 7 passive and active units to finially get down to its structure.

i am sure you have looked at this data, but there is a jumbled mess of numbers not so easily understood. There is one pattern I found (except the one passive sonar QGAP is negative sensitivity range is 8500m) and may account for why those particular DD with that passive sonar equipment for that mid? late? year are deaf and dumb. It maybe a small bug causing such a headache.

Thanks, Jungman. I'm looking forward to your printout.

TT

caspofungin
Thanks, I would greatly appreciate checking out your settings. If you could either post them or PM me. I finally made a bit of progress last night using a combination of RUB 1.45 only + adding certain lines from CB's sim.cfg. I'm testing late 1942 campaign mission.
For the first time I have a tenacious single DD which is behaving closer to what I think is acceptable. The stealth meter shows a change in detectability as I increase speed, change depth, disable/enable SR. Also the DD responds a bit differently depending on how much he is detecting me.
This may all be for nothing as it was one single encounter that I have played out/saved a couple dozen times. Going off to try it again. more later.

Jungman,
Welcome back.

It's a shame I couldn't follow this thread guys - would be great if there was a summary on the first page or something. I'm really curious how this is going; I agree that there is an issue with DD's, especially in terms of the general detection and hydrophone performance.

What's the status now? Are we any closer to a solution? :88)