SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Sub physics

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)

- - Sub physics - experts needed (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=125372)

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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

To be honest here, any damage large enough to show on a sub would probably result in a sinking. A sub is going to implode eventually if there is any watertight spaces (see USS Scorpion pics) or is going to break into multiple parts.

Any surface ship is going to burn like mad and maybe break in to 2 large pieces before she goes down. Something like the major topside damage and fragmentaion above the waterline I could see being as realistic.

A better approach would be to have a Damage Control section in the sim that showed you flooding, fire, damaged system, causalities, etc.

My thoughts exactly.

Subs with one hole will sink so no need there, surface ships are another matter from showing small arms fire or large calibre shell holes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead Nuke

A better approach would be to have a Damage Control section in the sim that showed you flooding, fire, damaged system, causalities, etc.

Far more important than the visual model, IMO.:up::up::up:

But lets take this hijacked thread back to physics model.
Once Dr Sid has it to a state he and us are happy with we can have another thread for damage control etc...

If we use more maps for damage, we can use simply naming convention. You will make model with textures Hull, Sail .. and there will also be textures Hull-d1, Hull-d2 for example which will have same resolution and mapping and will be used when needed. 3D model does not reference them directly. Or there can even be subfolders with texture sets, which would be even easier to use. But that's pretty far. Currently I'm working on navigation map, and switchable station displays.

Physics ideas are still welcome !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

This may be getting a little ahead of things, but if there are separate 3D model objects, does this mean that masts could be included as such objects and they would be visible in the sim?

All masts and all weapon loadouts will be visible, sure. Hey .. DW does not have it because someone was terribly lazy, not because it's not possible.
I want AI to control same subs as humans and to perform all task exactly in same way. I want AI to use the same control interface (if invisible) as humans would. So AI will have to open doors and flood tubes, reload, raise masts .. simply everything. There will be no non-playable platform. Only platforms with simple generic stations (with full functionality anyway).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

They need to have a "bowing/worshiping/we're-not-worthy" smiley.

Do you mean something like this : http://www.usvn.net/board/images/smilies/massa.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneShot

Do you mean something like this : http://www.usvn.net/board/images/smilies/massa.gif

Cheater, that's from the USVN boards.

Actually its from a german board I frequent, but I added it both to the USVN and CADC Boards :|\\

You could probably guess at surfacing speeds and such from these graphs from the NTSB investigation of the USS greenville collision. Far better then guessing from a youtube video. :yep: Also, you can see how the course changed.

Chart 1
Chart 2
Chart 3

Hohoho ! :up:

I was looking for the images in wikipedia and I could not find them. What page exactly are they from ? Are there more ? Speed graph especially.

Edit: found this: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/MAB0501.htm

Anyway it looks it took the sub almost 1 minute to emergency surface from 400ft. That seems quite a long time to me.

I wonder what is that glitch on the depth curve at 80ft depth just before the collision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Indeed that is it. 35deg bank mentioned as well.

Even better:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia:USS Houston (SSN-713)

In June of 2001 Houston was conducting normal training operations in the Pacific off the coast of Washington state, which included a "crash back" drill, in which the ship goes from ahead flank (maximum forward speed) to back full emergency (maximum engine power in reverse). The maneuver proceeded well, despite the tremendous shaking, noise, and stress the maneuver creates, until the boat began to gain sternway (actually moving backwards through the water).
When a vessel is moving backwards, her rudder and in the case of a submarine, her planes, function in the opposite manner than when she is moving forwards. The stern planesman failed to compensate for this phenomenon, and continued to try to trim the boat as if they still were making headway. When the stern began to rise, he raised the stern planes, which would have depressed the stern if they had been moving forward. While making sternway, it had the opposite effect, increasing the down-angle. The stern continued to rise, more rapidly as the boat accelerated backwards. Before the problem could be corrected, Houston had attained a 70 degree down-angle and her screw broached the surface while still turning at a high rpm. The control team performed a partial emergency ballast tank blow and safely surfaced the boat.

Not cited unfortunatly, and it seems a bit dubious but if that is true.... Anyway.