And I'm pretty solid right up through 6144 (or whatever it is). Sometimes things like you describe happen if I'm playing around at 8192 for some reason. I don;t think this is a bug... I suspect it has to do with the processing power of our computers. I don't know what you're running, but 2048 may simply be too much for it.

Or if it is a bug, it more likely related to the game's set up function... eg, the game did not properly identify or classify our machine's capabilities and failed to limit the max TC accordingly.


JD

Not sure about this. Have the conning tower upgrades been addressed. In other words, is it updated mid career? Or are you stuck with the same tower for the rest of your career with that boat?

I have had no luck in this area.

Bugs:

• SV radar dish spins way faster than it's historical maximum (6 rpm)
• Ships are automatically spotted by the crew when raising the periscope, making searches by the player unnecessary when preparing to surface.
• Compressed air is not being used by the submarine when rising towards the surface.
• The camera tilt in the conning tower is reversed in both directions, and it is tilted incorrectly in one direction in the command room.
• No collison detection for the deck guns and AA guns. That is, the weapons can be elevated and traversed without regard for any objects in the way.

Feature request:

• The ability to enter in a new depth/course/rudder/speed setting by typing the value on the keyboard.

Hell yes! You should be able to order 200 feet depth, or course due north, or ENE 45º... I have wished this for a long time, the possibility was not there in SH3 either...

Compressed air is being used when surfacing by the means of "blowing balast" and playing with unchecked "Unlimited compress air" in gameplay settings.

This not an easy fix and may affect performance (FPS) while being at that station.

Isn't it faster to just click (3 times) on the dials in the HUD?

Get out of Bangkok and back to romania .

Not when one wants a precise heading or depth. Currently it's a guessing game as to whether or not our mouse cursor is pointed over the value we truly want:

"New course, 157!"
"New course, 159!"
"New course, 162"
"New course, 156!"

"160 will do just fine, ensign." :shifty:

Nonetheless, it is something that should be fixed, should the time be found for it. In this day and age of computer gaming it looks downright silly being able to depress a gun barrel through a solid sheet of metal or steel cabling.

Bug: sampans and junks sound their collision alarm when another boat gets too close. Somehow I don't think these simple vessels were equippped with such a device. ;)

Yep...definitely time for my first post...
I spent a week or so pouring through this forum, getting the "feel" of the place so to say. Verdict's in: I like it here! :cool:
I don't know when the patch is due, but it souds like it's not very far away. Which means that probably all the fixes have already been done, and all that's left is the "fine tuning" (beta testing etc). Which means that everything said in here might apply to a 1.5 patch, as it is too late to add anything left out/not spotted already. Of course, I might be talking out of my exhaust pipe right now! :lol:
Anyway, what I've spotted and looks like a bug (and has also been mention in other threads, don't have time to dig up the links right now, sorry!), and appears in both vanilla (or stock as you call it over here ;)) and modded game, is that sometimes your sub will just sink like a stone, even when there's no apparent damage to it! In my latest mission, I've been surfaced for weeks now, because whenever I dive I really dive, all the way to the bottom, at an almost 90 degree angle! I've checked my damage with the Damage Analyzer, and there's nothing but Light Hull damage reported there, which cuts off my crush depth only slightly (about 10%).
Oh damn, there goes my bus...gotta ruuuuuun!!!

Glad you finally put your head up! WELCOME ABOARD!:sunny:

Maybe not a bug, but a design flaw
 

No one has stated it here in this thread, but have seen this discussed before in other threads. Maybe there is no way to fix this, but could be something to keep in mind if ever they do another WWII Pacific Theater SubSim.

ALL US fleet type submarines after the Perch Class, (Porpoise in Game), had 4, (read four), Diesel Engines
The lose of even three of them meant that the sub could still be driven home. I get very annoyed that this was not addressed in this Sim. Overall I love this game, especially after applying several of the MODS created by the Wonderful and very talented modding community here, (TM, ROW, NSM, LBO, etc.) These are great and really add to the immersion factor of the game.:up:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALL THE MODDERS! Maybe UBIsoft should consider hiring some of you for their forthcoming projects.

However if there is any way that this could be fixed then this game would be much more realistic. US Naval Designers gave the Fleet Subs four engines for only one real purpose, REDUNDANCY. Subs were expected to take damage and were designed to be survivable. This should have been modeled into the game.

Sorry for ranting on about this, but it really drives me nuts sometimes.:damn:

and unfortunatly that is not modable either
 

My comments are mainly about bases, transfers, and equipment upgrades. Although overall I think the game is very well done, there are still a few issues that make it look a little "sloppy." Some are not what I'd call bugs, but they don't seem like design descisions, either. I think I'll call them "Bernards.";) In no particular order, mine are:

Bernard #1. Base transfers in general. Switching from Perth-Fremantle to Pearl only costs you 1 day, during which you are teleported to your new base without having to sail there. Also, your first patrol from your new base will send you to the same place you went last time - pretty dumb to get assigned to patrol Java Sea from Pearl, partly because it isn't historical and partly because it's pretty much impossible to do in the game anyway (at least early on when there aren't any advance refueling bases).

Since quite a number of boats made their transfers by going on patrol from one base with one commander and ended that patrol at a new base with a new commander (see Blair's description of switching subs from Pearl to Australia and vice-versa), and since this is more or less how transfers were done with SH3, I'm wondering why it doesn't work this way in SH4.

Lastly, San Francisco - and this I know must be a decision, not a bug - major refitting (like having your con cut down or getting the H.O.R. engines replaced) should require a sailing from Pearl (or Australia) to Mare Island. Not really a ship-sinking, renown-earning mission, but more realistic. Some players might not care about this; it's just my two cents.

Bernard #2. Equipment upgrades and saving the game while in base. If you upgrade your gear - say, going to improved SD from regular SD - or promote crew, and then save the game in base and quit before starting your next patrol, you lose the upgrade and the renown you spent to get it. You have to go back and make all the changes again. The game remembers that you spent renown but forgets you should have something to show for it. Sometimes the stuff you want to upgrade even disappears from the available upgrades list. So you've lost your renown and now have to make another patrol (or start one and dock immediately) just to see them on the list again. This has been an issue since the release of SH3, and is, I think, the single most excuseless Bernard in the whole game.:damn:

Bernard #3. Mios Woendi. This is probably the one that bugs me most. I realize it may be an intentional design decision but I think it needs reexamining. Unless I'm mistaken, MW didn't become an advance submarine base until September or October of 1944. In the game it appears a full year earlier, in Sept. or Oct. of 1943. Again, I know some things are introduced early in the game (as they were in SH3) and I agree with that decision in general. There are some practical, "playability" reasons for flexing the historic chronology of things sometimes. But the problem with MW coming in that early is that you still have Amboina and other places that are still Japanese. It's a matter of areas of control. How are those sub tenders and tankers surviving up there at Mios Woendi, surrounded by the enemy and with no air cover or supply line? You have so much enemy territory to cross before you get to it that it's much less useful than it's intended to be.

My suggestion would be that, if you can't activate Mios Woendi in 1944, and you really want it activated early, then adjust the "frontline" of the campaign accordingly. In other words, less Japanese air cover between Australia and Java/Timor/Celebes, no surface ships, no targets, etc. Keep advance areas "advance" and rear areas "rear."

Also on this note, what happened to Majuro? It ought to be available in Sept. or Oct. of '43, instead of Mios Woendi.

Bernard #4. Deck gun. I second what others have already noted about moving the deck gun and the consequent inability to man it as a result. The way we have to deal with it now is sacrifice one patrol (start the patrol and then dock/end it without going anywhere) and it'll work normally next time (at least it did for me), but it's no fun giving up a patrol. Or else trying to go on patrol anyway without stuff you really need, like working air search radar!

Also - the enemy's gunners (on cargo ships) are too good. Mine aren't good enough. I like that you can still man the gun in rough weather (even if some consider it a cheat), and I try to play fair by only using the gun on targets of 1000 tons or less, but if the big freighter is crippled, motionless, and half-sunk anyway, I think I ought to be able to surface and deliver a coup-de-grace with the gun and not have to deal with quite such accurate gunfire from the target.

Bernard #5. Transparent crew. Seems like I read a few pages back that this was unfixable. Which doesn't make sense to me but if it's true I still want to go on record as saying "it sucks.":)

Lastly.This is minor, though. Patrols don't seem to fit into the grand scheme of the war as well as the player might expect after watching the cut scenes. You're based at Brisbane, you get a short movie about the advances our side is making (say, into the Marshalls), but your patrol orders don't actually take you there. Then enroute to your generic patrol station, you keep getting radio reports saying "All patrol craft assist" - well, you're never in the area that needs assistance. I suppose it was decided that this sort of in game experience was more suited to a single mission rather than a dynamic career component, but I'd prefer to actually get ordered to a lifeguarding station. Or even better, sent out toward one station and then diverted to another - have the patrol objectives changed instead of my doing it on my own time if I feel like it.

Anyway, that's enough from me. There are lots of things I do like about the game; things I think have been done right, so I don't want to sound like I'm down on the game. Thanks very much for listening to the comments from Subsimmers and taking them into account thus far in the patches!

Couple of things:

1. I give 10/10 to you and other developers for actually entering this site and posting directly to we punters. That's too rare in games - no doubt, in part, to the behaviour of punters in forums!

2. I have played the game and NEVER used compressed air. With all due respect, that is impossible. Subs always used some compressed air on surfacing, even without a major "blow everything" command (such commands were rare as they weren't used unless there was an emergency - such as water where there shouldn't be any :rotfl: or for a "battle surface"). They then achieved surface trim using "turbos". I have always used realistic settings, yet never use compressed air. Sure, not a show-stopper, but incorrect nonetheless.

3. Commands via typing would be good for the accuracy they give. As pointed out, trying for an accurate course isn't possible due to the inaccurate nature of the compass - a matter of scale. If we had voice commands installed that would address it, but most don't/won't. As an aside, I use the periscope to set course by using the " = " command to see what course I'm on, then moving the view by the number of degrees required to get the course I want and using " = " again. Typing '200' in course would be a big improvement in terms of ease of use.

4. Very interested to see what 1.4 produces. People here know I'm a critic of SHIV, but it's due to a desire to see it be what it might be, not out of an inherent bitchiness on my part (I hope).

5. I hope you read http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=123547

Again, special commendation to the active participation of developers - long may it continue!

Cheers all.