I would suspect that the information about breakdowns would be classified and any leak would not be pleasant for the "leaker". (Hello, Uncle Joe; is it always so cold here?).
Running cars at 100% RPMs is not usually recommended (20% above the red line). I suspect running the sub diesels is not a good idea for hours on end.
For game play, I would suggest engine failure after perhaps 1 hour.

sh3.exe in the file too,Thanks for help.:yeah:

@zj1985: please delete that link. Only I need to inspect your exe, but not the whole world.

@irish: Thanks. Your suggestion agrees with my estimation and LGN1's findings and assumption regarding time scales.

Since I work with chances / probabilities, I'll have to assume a timespan called T50%, after that the probability is P = 50% for a diesel damage (at flank speed).

The chance P(T) for a damage after a certain time T at flank speed can be calculated using the formula:

P(T) = 1 - 0,5 ^ (T/T50%).


So if I e.g. choose for Flank Speed T50% = 1/2 Hour = 30 Minutes:

• a damage will occur after 1 minute with a chance of 2%
• a damage will occur after 5 minutes with a chance of 11%
• a damage will occur after 15 minutes with a chance of 29%
• a damage will occur after 30 minutes with a chance of 50%
• a damage will occur after 1 hour with a chance of 75%
• a damage will occur after 2 hours with a chance of 94%
• a damage will occur after 5 hours with a chance of 99,9%

So I'll use T50% = 30 minutes for the first version of the forthcoming diesel damage mod.

EDIT: After some discussions I'll use a longer timespan for T50%.

To flank or no to flank. . .
 

Hello h.sie,

Please let me say my point of view about flank speed in SH3.:)

The difference in speed between flank speed and the high speed ---8212;at least inside SH3---8212; is around 2 knots in some cases/U-Boots/mods.

By introducing 30 % chance for damage with only 15 minutes use, is clearly obvious that a reasonable captain/player will prefer to keep high speed instead of flank, because the benefit is too weak for the risk.

For escape, anyway, the destroyers are much faster with 35 knots in average. So, were the benefits to risk 30 % damage, just to use flank speed for 15 minutes?

Why to choose flank speed under these conditions, (in game) and under witch circumstances?

I can't believe that a German diesel engine was implemented inside U-boots with so bad final gear (flank speed).

The data from uboot.net are not clear at all.

I can confirm you about modern German diesel running in the line just before red area in rpm, for more than one hour (like mine). OK, are modern, 3 liters cars, not u-boots, but under 20 times more pressure by common rail turbo, than inside u-boot, witch were a war machine. Flank speed was implemented for war use, not for fan between red lights in the highway, no?

I like the idea of damage after long period with flank speed, so, for example, is not easy to screen a fast task force, but not so early.

Minimum 1 hour without problem. And after, damage should be progressive: example 1% every 1 minute.

By introducing this option/mod, we will have other reality conflict: in SH3, damaged motors runs as well as no damaged motors, until no more hit points. Personally, I noticed that speed drop down only underwater with flooding, or, of course, with motor destroyed.

The scenario is well know from now: flank speed until first damage, down to high speed and begin of reparations (because in SH3 you can repair AND run in high speed in same time, no?), end of reparations, again flank speed. . . .


And, yes, you are right, damage can occur with any speed, for every type of motor.

Thank you very much for hosting my point of view.:DL

Thank you again for the new game you offer to us.:yeah:

For me, the increased fuel consumption has always been sufficient "punishment" for using flank speed.

Hi NGT,

thanks for your reply.

That's right, but the engines must produce a lot more power to be 2 knots faster. the relation between speed and required power is not linear. for doubeling his speed, a swimmer e.g. needs 2^3 = 8 times more power. ships don't behave totally different I guess. and this higher power is correlated with a higher risk of failure.

You are right, I'll enlarge the times and lower the probabilities for damage. my original values from some posts above were too hard. by the way: The main intention of this mod is not to model in detail what happens when a diesel is damaged. The intention is to prevent the player from using FLANK speed as the standard speed, e.g. when hunting a convoy for hours or days (a situation where 2 knots can be important). With this mod he has to think twice before ordering FLANK, because of the risk.


Nice idea, I'll keep that in mind.

In this point you are wrong. If I set a diesel engines damage to >50%, the engine is no more working but repairable in some hours. the speed dropped from 14kt to 11kt (full ahead) with only one engine working.

this can be omitted by setting both engines damage to > 50%, maybe 80%. Your speed will go down to 0 kt until damage is < 50%, what can take some hours (using the realistic repairtime fix).

h.sie

Hello h.sie,

This seems like a sensible approach. I would suggest a median time to failure of at least 8 hours or more, however. This would still give a 8% chance of failure after 1 hr. (which seems pretty risky to me). I think your formula is better than a progressive chance, unless detailed data justifies such an approach.



If little can be found in historical documents, this in itself suggests the engines were petty good. If frequent breakdowns were a big problem, there would likely be a lot more written about them. The U.S. H.O.R.'s were notorious for breaking down and much has been written about this.

@TorpX: I agree. As I told to NGT, I'll increase the median time-to-damage. The first version of that fix will be a test version for interested people as a basis for further tests and fine-adjustments of the parameters.

@W4HK: I know that not everybody will like this specific fix. but one can easily switch it off using Stieblers OptionsSelector.

@zj1985: The sh3.exe you sent me has been correctly patched to V15F3 but I don't know why it does not run under your OS and I cannot reproduce your problem since I have no chinese localised system. Sorry to say, but I fear I cannot help you.

h.sie

It's a pity that I can't use your mod.I'm very interested in your work.Thanks for answer again.

@zj1985: If the unpatched sh3.exe works on your PC but the patched one doesn't, maybe a virus protection mechanism hinders the execution?

For my patches, I use code injection mechanism to apply my new code to the executable. This mechanism is also used by viruses. So there is a chance that the executable is wrongfully identified as a virus and thus blocked.

maybe this is the reason. By the way: Thanks to all for trusting me that my intention is not to do any destructive and harmful things.

I also discovered that the last-modified timestamp of all DLL's and ACT's of your supplement folder files differ by some hours from those contained in the Patch-Kit. For this I have no explaination.

h.sie

I use ESET for protection,I will try to patch the exe in safe mode or unistall it.:hmmm:
And I edit menu.txt to make it compatible with other mods,but the DLLs are not changed.

@zj1985: as I already mentioned: the file is patched correctly. but you must execute (start) sh3.exe without virus protection / or with lower sensibility of your AV protection. if it then works, we have found the reason.

Maybe there's an exception list in ESET where you have to enter sh3.exe... :hmmm: