Interesting. My experience is with twin-screw boats, so torque effects were never an issue.

:arrgh!:

It's interesting how you guys are focusing on the simulation's failings with regards to control physics and how the boats behave in response to rudder orders, say. Nobody here has complained about how the simulation doesn't really do that great a job of simulating how sound behaves in the ocean either. Nor does it really model other important technical details, like signal processing, very well either. For example, nobody has to worry about how a beamformer works or what not. There is no measurable Doppler effect. The effects of ducting are modeled fairly poorly if you ask me. In general, any sonar effects originating from the wave nature of sound will be absent. There's no such thing as a Fourier waveform in DW, hence things like harmonics never show up on the narrowband display. Sometimes I think that if I was going to make a subsim, instead of simply having a list of frequencies coming from a submarine, each having similar magnitudes, each submarine ought to have a set of Fourier coefficients attached it it.

What they have is a set of displays and they each have their own rules, but no over-arching model seems to unite them so that there's a underlying logic they all share. If you look at DW from the perspective of an operational model, it's okay, you still capture a lot of the "bigger picture" aspects of a certain scale of naval combat, but if you think of it like a flight simulator, then it leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm not sure how much one really wants to go down this path, though. Warships have crews precisely because there's more technical details to take care of in say, one radar set, than one person can really do by themselves.

I think Dr Sid is wanting to address those deficiencies too but this is a testing ground to get the model physics right and then progress onto the next phase in order to tie it all together later.

If "here" means subsim, then you haven't been listening. Gripes about DW's acoustic model are quite common. If "here" means this thread, then it hasn't come up because the good Dr. hasn't modeled the acoustic environment yet, so there isn't much reason to discuss how the CSS is superior in that regard. Don't worry, that issue will come up when the project reaches that point, and he already has demonstrated his ability to create a better acoustic model than SCS has so things are looking good.

Okay, after playing with it for a while I do have a comment.

You are about right in the low speed handling.

Are you using a linear curve for response time or is it dyanmically calculated based on plane angle and speed?

The reason I ask it that while the slow speed handling is about right, the high speed stuff (25+ knots or so, seems to be slow by about 20%-40%).

I base this on old memories, but I remember doing JAM DIVE drills and was standing aft AT the stern plane control station and it just seemed that the down (or up) angle would come on a lot faster than what you have modeled.

I also remember that the time from you have to initate a back emergency (as a throttleman) is a LOT less than the time it takes to go deeper than test depth in your model. You have a VERY short timespan before the boat exceeds test crush depth during a jam dive.

Basically, the boat needs to have MUCH quicker pitch movement at higher speeds.

Both rudder and planes response depends on square of speed (and since LA has about same rudder and rear planes the amount is same too). But ! There are forces which work agains planes. Dynamic stability of the body in the first place, and it's amount too raises with square of speed.
Also sim3 model does not use front planes. I already have new model with front planes. They do not pitch the boat as the primary effect, but as they move center of the boat down, dynamic stability will do the pitch anyway. With front planes the down-pitch can be done a lot faster.
I'll release sim4 with forward planes today I hope. I'll check the pitching effect and how it depends on speed exactly, it's quite possible there are some bugs in it.

Here is the new version.

http://roger.questions.cz/other/sim4.zip

Changes:

-Bank controls are gone. Screw reaction is disabled, until better simulation of torque changing with speed is made (well described in that PDF from Bill !).
-You can control forward planes (on the sail). Use Z,X,C for that. They push the sub down or pull it up without changing pitch much. The sub will pitch anyway since it tries to point where it is going, but it can be countered with rear planes (and partially with planes autopilot set to 0).
-Forward planes are animated. Rear planes will be animated soon (Xabba has to change to model a bit).
-Simulation was remade so it does not depend on FPS anymore. Now physics is simulated every tenth of the virtual second. No matter what FPS or time compression you have, all simulation runs perfectly same. Intermediate positions are only computed for graphics when needed.
- Did I say time compression ? Yes ! Same controls as DW, except slash / resets it to 1.

BTW depth autopilot is still the same old one, it does not use forward planes but angle.

FYI - I think one thing SC/DW were missing for better game play was the ability to have higher levels of time compression and to have time compression drop out triggers which is common to manual flight and sub simulation games.

Eye eye sir, will do sir :arrgh!:
Well DW seems to have troubles to do real 32x .. it is much slower than that. Silent hunter uses simplified simulation at higher compression steps, and allows it only in some conditions - like for example 'no enemy around' .. so you can drop sound simulation or collisions. Dynamics alone are quite simple. AI does not have to be computed much often. Collisions can take some time, especially with tons of bullets from CIWS. Also some models of sound propagation I'm thinking about are quite CPU hungry. I just can't say now what will be possible.

But triggers ? Simple .. for sure !

Did you get the Typhoon I sent?

Good you asked ! Somehow thunderbird thinks it's spam. 688 was ok. You can see this program is made by americans. :arrgh!:

One thing I noticed tonight, I dived and surfaced a few times.

The I hit S and surface and went to flank, I went full down on the fair water planes and still dived even though the planes are out the water. level the planes and back up she goes. Maybe there should be an indicator for fairwater planes and stern planes. I also promise to regig the 688 ASAP, RL is in the way. I can do a pretty crude cut on the stern planes so no need to remap or you could wait for me to build a new tail and remap.

I have an Akula with seperate surfaces too if you want to try that.

Yes .. no planes nor screw is tested if it is submerged or not. It just behaves as if it is submerged. Will be solved when I introduce the 'parts' structure.

Stickied thread
 

Stickied the thread to make it easier to find should no one reply for a couple of days.

Thinking ahead here since I am redoing the 688 with seperate tail surfaces I was thinking about damage modelling and how to show it.

DW uses a system where there is a damaged model with different maps. I think this is cumbersome and increases the number of models needed. I was thinking of a system where one model would have several maps applied each showing progressively more damage. Also once sid has determined how physical damage will be shown I can start breaking models in certain places so bits come off and bend.

Anyone have any idea on how to put multiple maps on a .3DS model?